Helicopter Simulators and experience of same.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ON A HILL
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter Simulators and experience of same
I would be interested in comments regarding the following. A full motion hydraulicly assisted helicopter hover simulator powered by a small stationary engine. the machine would hover at 3 feet and rotate through 360 digrees. Its main purpose being to allow first time clients to practice coordinational skills at minimal cost. Toal cost of machine in the region £7500 and hourly running cost of £2 00. Thanks Bug
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where can I get simulator time?
As a student pilot, where can I go for simulator time to augment the time spent in real helicopters? My school has real helicopters only. I live in Seattle on the weekends but I travel around the US, Canada, and Europe for work.
--mj
--mj
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference between a flight simulator and a flight training device.
In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained by swapping time in the helicopter you are training, for time in an FTD. I'm not aware of a simulator for an R22, but simulators cost so much to run that the only benefit gained is in practicing drills that you could not (or would not) simulate in the aircraft (EOL's in ME aircraft, ditching etc.). Save time - and money - and continue learning the procedures applicable to the type that you're learning in. Hovering, by the way, isn't that difficult - it only seems impossible at first - you'll be surprised at how soon it all 'clicks' into place.
In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained by swapping time in the helicopter you are training, for time in an FTD. I'm not aware of a simulator for an R22, but simulators cost so much to run that the only benefit gained is in practicing drills that you could not (or would not) simulate in the aircraft (EOL's in ME aircraft, ditching etc.). Save time - and money - and continue learning the procedures applicable to the type that you're learning in. Hovering, by the way, isn't that difficult - it only seems impossible at first - you'll be surprised at how soon it all 'clicks' into place.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Beater:
I bed to differ on your comment that there isn't much to be gained from a Flight Training Device compared to the real helicopter. There are lots of examples of people spending time in something even more basic than a Flight Training Device (AATD in the USA, FNPT II in JAA countries) and then going out an nearly immediately hovering a real helicopter quite well. Ditto for a bunch of other training exercises - the device reduces the steepness of the learning curve and lets the training in the real helicopter be much more productive.
But it also takes good instructors to make that happen. Instructors who can use the tool well.
I bed to differ on your comment that there isn't much to be gained from a Flight Training Device compared to the real helicopter. There are lots of examples of people spending time in something even more basic than a Flight Training Device (AATD in the USA, FNPT II in JAA countries) and then going out an nearly immediately hovering a real helicopter quite well. Ditto for a bunch of other training exercises - the device reduces the steepness of the learning curve and lets the training in the real helicopter be much more productive.
But it also takes good instructors to make that happen. Instructors who can use the tool well.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I agree - The pilot who first petitioned the FAA to consider the fixed-base simulator as an "official" training aid, Mike Coligny, told me that he did 11 hours in the simulator before getting his hands on a real helicopter. After taking half an hour to get used to the pedal movements (they are different), he then went on to do a full commercial flight test, which he would have passed, said the examiner, except that he didn't have enough flying hours.
That was in a flyit - there are better ones out now!
Phil
That was in a flyit - there are better ones out now!
Phil
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
There is an advantage to using these devices to learn to physically control helicopters; but although mastering the hover in a FTD or similar will reduce the time spent in the aircraft, the time spent sitting in the real aircraft going through the start up and pre-flight procedures will never be wasted.
As an examiner, I have never failed anyone through their inability to hover, but I do often find that their knowledge of systems and/or procedures is lacking.
There is an advantage to using these devices to learn to physically control helicopters; but although mastering the hover in a FTD or similar will reduce the time spent in the aircraft, the time spent sitting in the real aircraft going through the start up and pre-flight procedures will never be wasted.
As an examiner, I have never failed anyone through their inability to hover, but I do often find that their knowledge of systems and/or procedures is lacking.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Beater:
The problem you describe about systems knowledge has little or nothing to do with simulators or FTDs, and more about ground school.
A good FTD will duplicate the action of the systems, but it takes a good instructor to think of things like bus failures or slow-overs of attitude indicators or other things that you can't ever practice in real life in the real helicopter.
But knowledge of systems in general is poor - I know of one large helicopter type that may still not have a good trainer for the FMS, and even the flight training for the FMS is sadly lacking. All the ground school was done by maintenance types, who while they had good knowledge of systems, couldn't describe the FMS at all.
We're nowhere close to the big airlines in this area, and we should be.
The problem you describe about systems knowledge has little or nothing to do with simulators or FTDs, and more about ground school.
A good FTD will duplicate the action of the systems, but it takes a good instructor to think of things like bus failures or slow-overs of attitude indicators or other things that you can't ever practice in real life in the real helicopter.
But knowledge of systems in general is poor - I know of one large helicopter type that may still not have a good trainer for the FMS, and even the flight training for the FMS is sadly lacking. All the ground school was done by maintenance types, who while they had good knowledge of systems, couldn't describe the FMS at all.
We're nowhere close to the big airlines in this area, and we should be.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the responses.
Sounds like no clear consensus, and no place around here to get full-fledged simulator time. I'm surprised a simulator would be more expensive to operate than a real helicopter, what with the maintenance costs, liability, and all that. I just watched an R-22 autorotation training video pointing out that more accidents happen from practice autorotations than from actual engine failures.
I decided to order X-Plane, a joystick to use as a cyclic, a throttle controller (to use as a collective), and pedals. I'm not sure this will accelerate my actual flight lessons much but it looks like fun. With the Seattle* maps maybe I'll learn my way around the local airfields.
I tried to fly the R-22 built into the demo version of X-Plane and couldn't get far with the keyboard. There are various third-party modules to emulate other helicopters.
* Speaking of Seattle, I was on the observation deck of the Columbia Tower this weekend and disappointed not to see helipads on top of the other office buildings.
--mj
Sounds like no clear consensus, and no place around here to get full-fledged simulator time. I'm surprised a simulator would be more expensive to operate than a real helicopter, what with the maintenance costs, liability, and all that. I just watched an R-22 autorotation training video pointing out that more accidents happen from practice autorotations than from actual engine failures.
I decided to order X-Plane, a joystick to use as a cyclic, a throttle controller (to use as a collective), and pedals. I'm not sure this will accelerate my actual flight lessons much but it looks like fun. With the Seattle* maps maybe I'll learn my way around the local airfields.
I tried to fly the R-22 built into the demo version of X-Plane and couldn't get far with the keyboard. There are various third-party modules to emulate other helicopters.
* Speaking of Seattle, I was on the observation deck of the Columbia Tower this weekend and disappointed not to see helipads on top of the other office buildings.
--mj
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a 190-ish hour pilot, who has been involved with PC-based flight sims for about twice as long as I've been flying the real thing.
I own both Microsoft FS (9, X, etc.) and X-Plane 8. I have spent many hours in the former (since version 3 I think) and a few hours in the latter (mostly due to frustration in the case of X-Plane), and I find the X-Plane flight model to (a) not be realistic and (b) to be a lot harder to fly than the real thing. I admire the approach that X-Plane takes to simulating a flying "body" but I think it completely misses the mark for helicopters.
MS FS certainly has its limitations and foibles, but I believe that it would result in less "negative transference" of basic skills than X-Plane.
Dave Blevins
USA
I own both Microsoft FS (9, X, etc.) and X-Plane 8. I have spent many hours in the former (since version 3 I think) and a few hours in the latter (mostly due to frustration in the case of X-Plane), and I find the X-Plane flight model to (a) not be realistic and (b) to be a lot harder to fly than the real thing. I admire the approach that X-Plane takes to simulating a flying "body" but I think it completely misses the mark for helicopters.
MS FS certainly has its limitations and foibles, but I believe that it would result in less "negative transference" of basic skills than X-Plane.
Dave Blevins
USA
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MHS,
I also think that the Simulator (level-D) is a life saver, ie. you can practise the hole procedure of engine fires, loss of tailrotor etc.
But my point is the following. It puts a big responsibility on the instructor, its no deal for an instructor to put the student "down on his knees" in a simulator....just put on an big amount of malfuntions and the student will mess up sooner or later.
When you train in the simulator you have to keep it realistic, do "one malfunction/emergemcy" at the time (of course a malfunction can lead to and will usually lead to some secondary problems as well).
So. keep it realistic!!
Thanks
Ps. what is the chances of getting double engine failure in a twin (ok, its possible but it will not happen very often), but its always good to exercise some autos!
I also think that the Simulator (level-D) is a life saver, ie. you can practise the hole procedure of engine fires, loss of tailrotor etc.
But my point is the following. It puts a big responsibility on the instructor, its no deal for an instructor to put the student "down on his knees" in a simulator....just put on an big amount of malfuntions and the student will mess up sooner or later.
When you train in the simulator you have to keep it realistic, do "one malfunction/emergemcy" at the time (of course a malfunction can lead to and will usually lead to some secondary problems as well).
So. keep it realistic!!
Thanks
Ps. what is the chances of getting double engine failure in a twin (ok, its possible but it will not happen very often), but its always good to exercise some autos!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
An interesting point - there are no certificated requirements to be a simulator instructor. Surprised EASA hasn't come up with something (oops, maybe they'll be lurking and start something....)
Shawn,
where do you get that position from? What are SFIs, SFEs, if not certificated? Additionally, TRE/TRI authorities are either a/c only or a/c and sim. EASA doesn't certify flight crew yet either: it's still a JAR FCL function.
Admitedly, there are no additional requirements for instructors conducting non-regulatory training (i.e. not for an LPC/OPC or TR course) other than the simulator provider's own IOS course (which is largely for insurance purposes.)
where do you get that position from? What are SFIs, SFEs, if not certificated? Additionally, TRE/TRI authorities are either a/c only or a/c and sim. EASA doesn't certify flight crew yet either: it's still a JAR FCL function.
Admitedly, there are no additional requirements for instructors conducting non-regulatory training (i.e. not for an LPC/OPC or TR course) other than the simulator provider's own IOS course (which is largely for insurance purposes.)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-Plane helicopter update
Here's an update in case anyone's curious.
I downloaded another helicopter for X-Plane 8.6, a Hughes H500D, which seems very realistic and somewhat easier to fly than the default R-22. With no kinesthetic feedback and only one screen, it's still harder to fly than the real R-22 I'm training on. But if 10 hours of simulator time can save me 1 hour of lesson time I'm money ahead. Plus it's fun.
I took the springs out of my CH Products pedal controller and Flightstick. That made them a lot more like helicopter controls and I recommend doing this. Also, for now, I disabled wind gusts and set the controls to non-linear mode to reduce twitchyness.
With the H500D, the only thing that seems unrealistic is the lack of tactile feedback, and the one screen with no peripheral vision. It yaws in response to the collective, smooths out through translational lift, rolls to the right when exceeding Vne, sounds a low-RPM horn when the collective is yanked.... I guess it wouldn't fool a pro pilot but seems like a good learning tool for a low-hour student like me.
I'm going to try running on multiple screens next.
--mj
I downloaded another helicopter for X-Plane 8.6, a Hughes H500D, which seems very realistic and somewhat easier to fly than the default R-22. With no kinesthetic feedback and only one screen, it's still harder to fly than the real R-22 I'm training on. But if 10 hours of simulator time can save me 1 hour of lesson time I'm money ahead. Plus it's fun.
I took the springs out of my CH Products pedal controller and Flightstick. That made them a lot more like helicopter controls and I recommend doing this. Also, for now, I disabled wind gusts and set the controls to non-linear mode to reduce twitchyness.
With the H500D, the only thing that seems unrealistic is the lack of tactile feedback, and the one screen with no peripheral vision. It yaws in response to the collective, smooths out through translational lift, rolls to the right when exceeding Vne, sounds a low-RPM horn when the collective is yanked.... I guess it wouldn't fool a pro pilot but seems like a good learning tool for a low-hour student like me.
I'm going to try running on multiple screens next.
--mj
