AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it provides an informative forum and draws in some of our more technical members, it will perform a useful function. I will certainly be following it because it is clear that we have a serious problem with the understanding. and the use, of automation with the models that are currently in service.
The fact that some of our members have qualified sophisticated simulators and still have the scars to show it, and others who use simulators as part of their day job and have reservations about their fidelity, indicates that all is not well in the state of simulation.
It is also clear that the advances that we have seen in automation of the modern fleet has not been matched by an appropriate change in the certification of: FSTD; Type Ratings; operational training requirements; or a concomitant change in the SOPs.
It will also act as a balance to those who believe that IVRS was the cause of the L2 accident or think that we have no use for stabilised approaches or a move to CDFA.
Mars
The fact that some of our members have qualified sophisticated simulators and still have the scars to show it, and others who use simulators as part of their day job and have reservations about their fidelity, indicates that all is not well in the state of simulation.
It is also clear that the advances that we have seen in automation of the modern fleet has not been matched by an appropriate change in the certification of: FSTD; Type Ratings; operational training requirements; or a concomitant change in the SOPs.
It will also act as a balance to those who believe that IVRS was the cause of the L2 accident or think that we have no use for stabilised approaches or a move to CDFA.
Mars
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Ridge
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone that works for a sim manufacturer that has developed and qualified all levels of sims (fixed wing and helicopter) using data packages by OEMs, 3rd party vendors, and in-house collected packages... if better sims are wanted, then here's what's needed:
I could go on for pages about the qualification regs and what they do and don't not accomplish as far as objectively measuring sim behavior, but that's best left for another thread.
- Easy access to the actual aircraft for initial data collection, fact finding, and comparisons against sim behavior. You might be surprised to learn that the OEMs themselves don't always have this luxury.
- A competent subject matter expert (SME) that is detail oriented, articulate, and understands the limits of their own knowledge. I think any pilot that has acted as a SME has been surprised by how humbling an experience it can be.
- Cooperation of the OEMs and OEM suppliers. This is the most difficult to achieve because it involves accountants and lawyers, and it rarely happens without LOTS of money exchanging hands.
- Sim operators that are willing to work with sim manufacturers to resolve problems (i.e., "It doesn't work" isn't a useful description of a simulator discrepancy).
- Pairing a sim operator that cares with a sim manufacturer that cares. Sounds cheesy, but that doesn't make it any less important. Developing a quality sim is a huge effort, and at some point in the development cycle the limits of those involved are going to be pushed. Having people involved that really care is going to make a difference between pushing onward or settling for mediocrity.
- Money to pay for all this.
- Time to make all this happen.
I could go on for pages about the qualification regs and what they do and don't not accomplish as far as objectively measuring sim behavior, but that's best left for another thread.
SFT,
Is it accurate to assume the Military does a better job of accomplishing this when they field a new aircraft and include in the procurement contract the Simulators as well as the aircraft, special tools, spares and such?
By making Sim's an integral part of the entire program would seem to have some merit although in the civilian world....where aircraft orders might trickle in over time, have very different avionics fits, and many different operators, would it be impossible to do?
Is it accurate to assume the Military does a better job of accomplishing this when they field a new aircraft and include in the procurement contract the Simulators as well as the aircraft, special tools, spares and such?
By making Sim's an integral part of the entire program would seem to have some merit although in the civilian world....where aircraft orders might trickle in over time, have very different avionics fits, and many different operators, would it be impossible to do?
All you have to do is amend FAR 27/29 / CS 27/29 to require manufacturers to provide comprehensive information about how their helicopters behave, and a zero cost data package available to anyone with a need to know. Simples! And if it's in the regulations, it's a level playing field. Anyone who was actually interested in Flight Safety would support this. Trouble is, too many people involved in such things are more interested in the politics and their personal careers, with flight safety coming well down their list of priorities.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFT et al
So what we are saying is:
1. Include the sim in the package for a new type from day 1.
2. Tie in all component suppliers to the same programme at the initial contract phase.
3. Production of an 'open source' data package to be a condition of certification and that should include any and all iterations that follow.
No more charades that attempt to disguise the fact that to teach a new type the flight and sim instructors involved must be given the right tools to do the job. The first organisation to put together a competent package will corner the market and those who ignore the realities will find themselves with some very expensive tourist attractions that nobody wants to use.
For sure up front costs will be higher but just think of the bliss of no more 'lost-time recovery' and never again will you be faced with a student who says "Geoff, that was so confusing I now know less than when I went in." (sorry Andy!) after a session in which the FMS computers seem to have a mind of their own.
G.
1. Include the sim in the package for a new type from day 1.
2. Tie in all component suppliers to the same programme at the initial contract phase.
3. Production of an 'open source' data package to be a condition of certification and that should include any and all iterations that follow.
No more charades that attempt to disguise the fact that to teach a new type the flight and sim instructors involved must be given the right tools to do the job. The first organisation to put together a competent package will corner the market and those who ignore the realities will find themselves with some very expensive tourist attractions that nobody wants to use.
For sure up front costs will be higher but just think of the bliss of no more 'lost-time recovery' and never again will you be faced with a student who says "Geoff, that was so confusing I now know less than when I went in." (sorry Andy!) after a session in which the FMS computers seem to have a mind of their own.
G.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Ridge
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
Unfortunately, the military is one area where I have very little experience, so I would be out of line if I made any comments regarding those programs.
On the commercial side, however, I have been involved in the development of simulators for new rotary wing types/variants, and I found the process lacking. Sims have always been an afterthought to the OEMs, and we were always 4th or 5th fiddle when it came to being heard and taken care of.
I see signs of this changing (at least on the rotary wing side of things), but OEMs move slowly.
HC has it right. If safety was the top concern of the OEMs and OEM suppliers, then OEMs/suppliers would make the information available. It's not, so they don't (or at least that's how it appears to be with a majority of the OEMs).
Some OEMs are friendlier than others (I'll avoid any names in order to protect my skin), and I think those friendlier OEMs have people in place that are legitimately trying to help make the best training devices they can, but money is king and those people don't control the money.
Unfortunately, the military is one area where I have very little experience, so I would be out of line if I made any comments regarding those programs.
On the commercial side, however, I have been involved in the development of simulators for new rotary wing types/variants, and I found the process lacking. Sims have always been an afterthought to the OEMs, and we were always 4th or 5th fiddle when it came to being heard and taken care of.
I see signs of this changing (at least on the rotary wing side of things), but OEMs move slowly.
HC has it right. If safety was the top concern of the OEMs and OEM suppliers, then OEMs/suppliers would make the information available. It's not, so they don't (or at least that's how it appears to be with a majority of the OEMs).
Some OEMs are friendlier than others (I'll avoid any names in order to protect my skin), and I think those friendlier OEMs have people in place that are legitimately trying to help make the best training devices they can, but money is king and those people don't control the money.
Even if safety isn't the top priority of the OEMs (of course it isn't, profit is, although the canny ones realise that safety is good for profit) then you would at least think that it would be for the regulators who create such things as JAR/CS27/29. But perhaps they are weak in the face of lobbying from the OEMs and/or attend the same leisure institutions?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Add one more thing to my list....
There should be a certification class called 'Complex Types'. This will introduce a rule that prohibits the use of the real aircraft for training where the rehearsal of any system failure or malfunction is to be carried out.
From the get-go the sim has to be up and running and the aircraft and the sim given simultaneous certification.
I know ..... in my dreams. But in the words of a certain song "if you don't have a dream how you gonna have a dream come true."
G.
From the get-go the sim has to be up and running and the aircraft and the sim given simultaneous certification.
I know ..... in my dreams. But in the words of a certain song "if you don't have a dream how you gonna have a dream come true."
G.
There should be a certification class called 'Complex Types'. This will introduce a rule that prohibits the use of the real aircraft for training where the rehearsal of any system failure or malfunction is to be carried out.
Apart from the loss of lube pumps, all of these have been line related. I see the deficiency as being in line training, for which there is of course still a role for simulators.
Last edited by industry insider; 8th Nov 2013 at 21:20. Reason: Typo
Do we really need a full motion, visual equipped, Level D Simulator.....to teach the intricacies of the AFCS and FMS systems on the aircraft?
Granted....it would be a perfect world if we did....but would not a super duper Systems Trainer suffice?
Granted....it would be a perfect world if we did....but would not a super duper Systems Trainer suffice?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Ridge
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
What you hint at is the difference between "training" and "checking".
Speaking from a non-regulatory standpoint, a good quality FTD can provide almost all of the systems training you could ever want (and if it has a good base shaker probably most of the flying training as well), while a higher fidelity device is probably desired during "checking".
The cost to benefit ratio of having a motion system is debatable. A hexapod is pretty limited in terms of the cues it can produce, so there's always a certain amount of misleading cues that get generated during the more aggressive maneuvers. A good argument can be made for bagging the motion system entirely and just going with a good vibration platform.
But all that is moot because the regulatory agencies dictate what level of device is required in order to receive "official" credit.
If a hard case could be made to the regulators that time spent in an FTD (which can cost nearly an order of magnitude less than a FFS) is just as effective as time spent in a FFS, then they might be willing to listen. But the process of creating a whole new set of regulations has just finished, so I don't think people have the energy for revisiting things at this point.
What you hint at is the difference between "training" and "checking".
Speaking from a non-regulatory standpoint, a good quality FTD can provide almost all of the systems training you could ever want (and if it has a good base shaker probably most of the flying training as well), while a higher fidelity device is probably desired during "checking".
The cost to benefit ratio of having a motion system is debatable. A hexapod is pretty limited in terms of the cues it can produce, so there's always a certain amount of misleading cues that get generated during the more aggressive maneuvers. A good argument can be made for bagging the motion system entirely and just going with a good vibration platform.
But all that is moot because the regulatory agencies dictate what level of device is required in order to receive "official" credit.
If a hard case could be made to the regulators that time spent in an FTD (which can cost nearly an order of magnitude less than a FFS) is just as effective as time spent in a FFS, then they might be willing to listen. But the process of creating a whole new set of regulations has just finished, so I don't think people have the energy for revisiting things at this point.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS and II
SAS
Of course you are right, a motionless FTD is indeed a very good IF training device. The motion system is just the icing on the cake. I could probably teach 90% of the VFR stuff on a motionless FTD and get value out of it for the visual systems these days are first class and getting better al the time.
II
It's the very principle that I am concerned about. Is it right that a pilot can have a rating on the new generation helicopters without having seen how the aircraft behaves when system failures occur? Such is the clever design of these machines that it is impossible to demonstrate - safely - electrical failures, hydraulic failures, fuel system malfunctions, engine failures that truly replicate the real thing and autorotations.
If you were to add up the number of exceedances that occur doing real aircraft training then I am sure the number would frighten your socks off. Where are the incident reports I hear you say? Very good question. Don't expect transparency when accidents and incidents are concerned. Personal and national pride and commercial interests come first.
G.
Of course you are right, a motionless FTD is indeed a very good IF training device. The motion system is just the icing on the cake. I could probably teach 90% of the VFR stuff on a motionless FTD and get value out of it for the visual systems these days are first class and getting better al the time.
II
It's the very principle that I am concerned about. Is it right that a pilot can have a rating on the new generation helicopters without having seen how the aircraft behaves when system failures occur? Such is the clever design of these machines that it is impossible to demonstrate - safely - electrical failures, hydraulic failures, fuel system malfunctions, engine failures that truly replicate the real thing and autorotations.
If you were to add up the number of exceedances that occur doing real aircraft training then I am sure the number would frighten your socks off. Where are the incident reports I hear you say? Very good question. Don't expect transparency when accidents and incidents are concerned. Personal and national pride and commercial interests come first.
G.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOn't forget....
...that when the sims are working they are the most fantastic teaching tool and the future for them is brighter than it's ever been. We just need them to have fidelity and reliability and replicate the system behaviour of the real thing.
G.
G.
Among other things, more realism in every field is what is needed for the sim to be more efficient and fully accepted by the crews.
The display: this is where the most important improvements could be made. What we see in the reality from a few cm to infinity is displayed on a screen at few meters from the crew. I think it is the heart of the problem. It will take a quantum leap in technology to correct this. In the meantime, beefing up the hardware can improve things significantly.
The motion:
SFT
"A good argument can be made for bagging the motion system entirely and just going with a good vibration platform."
Doing this will only increase the difference between the real thing and the sim. A new system has been developped, which responds more effectively to controls inputs without this kick in the ass effect caused by the hydraulic, and which also cuts costs -no need for hydraulic.
Realism means that an input on the controls must be followed immediately by a change in the motion and the display simultaneously.
It also means that the lack of cues other than visual must be adressed, i.e. the noise caused by the airstream increasing with the airspeed.
The full similarity between the sim and the aircraft. Although every effort is made to fulfill this requirement, differences still exist and take some time to be fixed. I think of the AP software mods which are not immediately implemented on the sim.
Ideally, the aircrfat should be developped using a simulator as a tool.
The realism issue could be discussed ad nauseam, it always come down to big money. The slightest modification in the sim system costs an arm.
Sorry for highjacking the thread.
ATN
The display: this is where the most important improvements could be made. What we see in the reality from a few cm to infinity is displayed on a screen at few meters from the crew. I think it is the heart of the problem. It will take a quantum leap in technology to correct this. In the meantime, beefing up the hardware can improve things significantly.
The motion:
SFT
"A good argument can be made for bagging the motion system entirely and just going with a good vibration platform."
Doing this will only increase the difference between the real thing and the sim. A new system has been developped, which responds more effectively to controls inputs without this kick in the ass effect caused by the hydraulic, and which also cuts costs -no need for hydraulic.
Realism means that an input on the controls must be followed immediately by a change in the motion and the display simultaneously.
It also means that the lack of cues other than visual must be adressed, i.e. the noise caused by the airstream increasing with the airspeed.
The full similarity between the sim and the aircraft. Although every effort is made to fulfill this requirement, differences still exist and take some time to be fixed. I think of the AP software mods which are not immediately implemented on the sim.
Ideally, the aircrfat should be developped using a simulator as a tool.
The realism issue could be discussed ad nauseam, it always come down to big money. The slightest modification in the sim system costs an arm.
Sorry for highjacking the thread.
ATN
ATN I disagree. The most important thing is accurate replication of the behaviour of the helicopter and all its systems, in all its normal and abnormal modes.
Good visuals are helpful, and whilst the limited distance to the projector dome causes parallax, in practice the human brain quickly adapts (quickly, as in a couple of minutes). Good field of view is important, but resolution really isn't. Of course, when flying IMC the visuals are useless!
Motion is mostly useful for the minor cues from turbulence, undercarriage ground contact, translational lift etc. Motion will always be limited, and it really isn't worth spending a lot of money to have a lot of motion travel - the money is better spent elsewhere.
In fact I would say that motion's primary purpose is to help reduce motion sickness. Sounds like a contradiction but with a wide field of view, visual cueing is very powerful and the brain doesn't like it if there is no motion cueing to go with the visual cues.
It must be remembered that we are not trying to teach people to fly with these sims. Hopefully they can already fly, and what we are trying to teach are the particular features of the type. Therefore realism in visual flying is not that important.
Good visuals are helpful, and whilst the limited distance to the projector dome causes parallax, in practice the human brain quickly adapts (quickly, as in a couple of minutes). Good field of view is important, but resolution really isn't. Of course, when flying IMC the visuals are useless!
Motion is mostly useful for the minor cues from turbulence, undercarriage ground contact, translational lift etc. Motion will always be limited, and it really isn't worth spending a lot of money to have a lot of motion travel - the money is better spent elsewhere.
In fact I would say that motion's primary purpose is to help reduce motion sickness. Sounds like a contradiction but with a wide field of view, visual cueing is very powerful and the brain doesn't like it if there is no motion cueing to go with the visual cues.
It must be remembered that we are not trying to teach people to fly with these sims. Hopefully they can already fly, and what we are trying to teach are the particular features of the type. Therefore realism in visual flying is not that important.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 9th Nov 2013 at 23:48.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
I can go along with that no problem. Your observation that the candidates for a TR course can already fly seems to have passed the regulators by. When are they going to get it! You give a guy a commercial licence - what does that tell you? YES - HE CAN FLY A **?!@ing helicopter!!.
Why does every TR course devote so much of the time to something the authorities have already confirmed. What we need is to focus on what makes the new helicopter different and especially, these days, the systems that are at the heart of the beast.
The chances are that tomorrows 'loss of control' accident is going to be down to mishandling of the automation not a lack of flying skills per se.
G.
Why does every TR course devote so much of the time to something the authorities have already confirmed. What we need is to focus on what makes the new helicopter different and especially, these days, the systems that are at the heart of the beast.
The chances are that tomorrows 'loss of control' accident is going to be down to mishandling of the automation not a lack of flying skills per se.
G.
Yet you treat every helicopter as a completely different "Type"....which sets you up for that situation.
At least in the FAA system....anything 12,500 pounds or less is considered the same "Type".
I use the adage..."A helicopter is a helicopter is a helicopter!".
They all have far more in common than they do differences when you really get down to the basics.
It is the differences that matter when it comes to conversions/transitions.
Why not focus on those?
At least in the FAA system....anything 12,500 pounds or less is considered the same "Type".
I use the adage..."A helicopter is a helicopter is a helicopter!".
They all have far more in common than they do differences when you really get down to the basics.
It is the differences that matter when it comes to conversions/transitions.
Why not focus on those?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
My tuppence worth -
1. The performance of the SIM should not only be aligned to the Aircraft Type specific teaching objectives but also to the requirements of the missions for which training is delivered. The cockpit layout, instruments and switches should be accurate (but the obsession with "Real" components is inappropriate).
2. For VMC operations (close the surface or obstacles) the visual field of view should provide the same visual references that we have from our crew seat. At least 50 degrees below the horizon and 210 degrees horizontally. Texture of the surfaces in the VDB is vital to provide visual references for accurate hovering and positioning for dynamic manoeuvres such as hospital or helideck take-offs.
3. Digital systems and associated aircraft behaviour should replicate exactly what happens in the aircraft.
4. Power performance modelling should be accurate to provide relevant frames of reference for the crew.
5. ALL flight manual NORMAL, ABNORMAL and EMERGENCY procedures should be available in the IOS and accurately represented.
6. Flight loop modelling should be as accurate as possible.
7. Motion should provide sufficient cues to prevent airsickness and provide realism. IMHO not as important as we might think.
8. Noise and vibration should be realistic and are easily achieved
DB
1. The performance of the SIM should not only be aligned to the Aircraft Type specific teaching objectives but also to the requirements of the missions for which training is delivered. The cockpit layout, instruments and switches should be accurate (but the obsession with "Real" components is inappropriate).
2. For VMC operations (close the surface or obstacles) the visual field of view should provide the same visual references that we have from our crew seat. At least 50 degrees below the horizon and 210 degrees horizontally. Texture of the surfaces in the VDB is vital to provide visual references for accurate hovering and positioning for dynamic manoeuvres such as hospital or helideck take-offs.
3. Digital systems and associated aircraft behaviour should replicate exactly what happens in the aircraft.
4. Power performance modelling should be accurate to provide relevant frames of reference for the crew.
5. ALL flight manual NORMAL, ABNORMAL and EMERGENCY procedures should be available in the IOS and accurately represented.
6. Flight loop modelling should be as accurate as possible.
7. Motion should provide sufficient cues to prevent airsickness and provide realism. IMHO not as important as we might think.
8. Noise and vibration should be realistic and are easily achieved
DB
DB,
"
I am not as convinced that "Motion" reduces "Sim Sickness".....as it is physically impossible to replicate actual felt sensation by means of the motion system.
The few times i got Sim Sick was upon flying the Sim immediately after lots of hours of flying the real helicopter within sometimes just hours of the getting into the Sim.
Your body gets confused when what you see visually does not comport with what you naturally feel during flight in those same situations. That is what got me....you do a steepish turn in the Sim and there are no G forces produced as in actual flight. The Sim may shift initially but then gradually reduces the input returning towards level as the turn continues....which is not the case in flight.
"
I am not as convinced that "Motion" reduces "Sim Sickness".....as it is physically impossible to replicate actual felt sensation by means of the motion system.
The few times i got Sim Sick was upon flying the Sim immediately after lots of hours of flying the real helicopter within sometimes just hours of the getting into the Sim.
Your body gets confused when what you see visually does not comport with what you naturally feel during flight in those same situations. That is what got me....you do a steepish turn in the Sim and there are no G forces produced as in actual flight. The Sim may shift initially but then gradually reduces the input returning towards level as the turn continues....which is not the case in flight.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
SAS I agree but may have mislead with my comments. What I meant to say is it is impossible to recreate real motion without infinite ability to generate "G". As you say, once the actuators have "runout" the forces cannot be sustained.
It is because it is impossible to recreate real motion it's importance becomes less than a whole host of other characteristics. For large civil helicopter applications the motion response required for all normal and most abnormal procedures are minimal. For a few procedures, reject, auto, EOLS and TR malfunctions all motions systems reach their limit. However the impact on training can be minimal if the system responds sensibly and the flight loop is correctly modelled.
For military operations I suspect they need a little more from their motion systems but I see a coalescence between MIL and CIVIL Simulator training syllabi as the machines we operate become more complex. Setting battlefield sim scenarios aside, the training requirement becomes identical. To safely manage the machine in all normal and abnormal procedures.
Your thoughts on this would be welcomed.
DB
It is because it is impossible to recreate real motion it's importance becomes less than a whole host of other characteristics. For large civil helicopter applications the motion response required for all normal and most abnormal procedures are minimal. For a few procedures, reject, auto, EOLS and TR malfunctions all motions systems reach their limit. However the impact on training can be minimal if the system responds sensibly and the flight loop is correctly modelled.
For military operations I suspect they need a little more from their motion systems but I see a coalescence between MIL and CIVIL Simulator training syllabi as the machines we operate become more complex. Setting battlefield sim scenarios aside, the training requirement becomes identical. To safely manage the machine in all normal and abnormal procedures.
Your thoughts on this would be welcomed.
DB