Simulator Flying - is it enough?
 

With the increasing complexity of helicopters do you spend enough time in the 'box' ?

Putting it 'out there' as I visit the 'box' twice a year, usually 4 x 2-hr slots each time, but still feel that is not enough.

After the examiner has tried to complete the various mandatory exercises and you've been bounced around various scenarios within the allotted time frame - I'm often left with the feeling of having been 'run thru the mill' and struggle to appreciate the training value.
It is usually the case that after you've re-learnt how to fly the 'box' - its time to go back to work.
Box time is relatively expensive and a balance must be met - especially for the smaller companies. Maybe the new wave of VR training aids will improve access/competition as I still struggle to see why traditional simulators are so expensive to procure - when you consider that MS FlightSim graphics are far superior than any Level-D 'box' I have sat in!

Box Checking is not training.

As an examiner myself, I can tell you that a lot of instructors and Examiners are using the Sim inefficiently.

Instead of reproducing realistic scenarios, you get engine failure on take-off, recover, engine quick restart, hydraulic failure, recover, unusual attitude, recover, transmission failure.. All within the first 15 minutes... (you get the idea).


I try to use the time as efficient as possible as well (by avoiding long empty legs), but I manage to cover the mandatory exercises and leave some time at the end for the pilot to practice things he wants or needs...

(But then, I am not flying any of those hypercomplex types like a 189 or stuff..).

I agree that MS FS and other PC graphics are better than those found in many simulators, but graphics quality isn't the whole story...especially for night/IMC operations. A full-motion simulator with a decent flight model, vibration, noise, a proper representation of the relevant type's cockpit and some kind of air traffic control enhance the illusion of reality and increase the background stress levels on the crew. These don't come cheap. Nor does an experienced and competent instructor. You can make do without motion, which reduces the cost, but the simulator is less effective at replicating emergencies such as tail rotor failures and control malfunctions. I agree that box - ticking emergencies training is of limited value. Fewer malfunctions taken through to their conclusion, or at least until the crew has made its decisions are, in my experience, of far greater value. Quality simulator is expensive....and invaluable.

A simulator does not fly like the aircraft it represents. It flies according to the programmer's brief.

When things are going wrong In the real helicopter they do not fly like normal either.

Interesting point. I remember having the same amount of sim time for OPC on the Bell 212 as I do on the 189. The 212 OPC/LPC was a very enjoyable, gentlemanly affair with lots of time to practice such things as actually flying the aircraft. There are so many mandated items to cover in the 189 that everything is compressed into a frantic box ticking exercise that leaves both instructor and pilots exhausted and irritable.

I’ve been exposed to some terrible training in expensive and complex simulators.
Usually as a result of an instructor abandoning any semblance of educational technique in order to rush through all the “box ticking” required.
Like most “shortcuts”, it ends up being the “long and inefficient way”. A sad waste of opportunity.

I always enjoyed the S76B sim sessions at West Palm. Pleasant instructors, enough time to cover the sequences, and a bit of time for looking at things I wanted to revise.

Sure, it doesn't behave like the actual machine, and we all knew it - hovering was a horse's patootie, so we would get into forward flight as ASAP as possible. The visuals (this is 13 years ago) could sometimes topple my eyeballs, but again we knew it was just a representation. But the training value was still there. The ground school was excellent.

Same Again - is one of the problems cramming the LPC and OPC into one sim session rather than completing them separately?

As I'm sure you are aware the LPC and OPC are very similar both having two separate sorties for the Visual and Instrument elements. I think most operators these days do a 6 monthly OPC in the sim followed by the LPC 6 months later. I have qualified on a number of progressively more complex types in the sim over the years - the last being the 189 - and the more complex the aircraft the more there is to potentially fail and learn. Also these days the PC profiles also take up so much time to perfect. One aspect of sim training that does not seem to have changed is the number of 2 hour slots available to cram all of this into. Would I want to spend more time in the sim? Personally - no thanks as I find it all very stressful. Thankfully retirement is imminent!

Same again - that's what I wasn't sure of - whether the OPC was separate from the LPC or lumped together. The way you describe it, in two discrete rides 6 months apart, seems sensible.

I can only assume the 189 PC profiles are more complicated than the 139 ones.

Do you enjoy going that's the question? If you plan to enjoy your time in the SIM and you've prepped a big bag of questions for your hopefully competent instructor, then you're doing more than just box ticking yourself. I have always enjoyed the opportunity to expand and develop my abilities so have probably come away with more than just those guys who take a deep breath and just get it done and say nothing in class. The most interesting part for me is talking with the other guys and carefully listening to their stories.

Sir Korsky - I don't think such LPC/OPC sessions are enjoyable, they are, after all, a checkride which you can't fail if you want to stay employed. The box-ticking satisfies the regulators but doesn't guarantee quality - as many here have pointed out.

If you have access to a sim for development training then that is a different matter but as costs are pared to the bone, that is unlikely.

The Sim is good as long as the instructor is.....You can go to different facilities and hope for better, but at the end, the instructor is the key to get good training, it does not matter where it is. I had horrible session and very good one (2016/17 Flight Safety with Ryan Rowzee, but he is now gone, the good one do not stay). We go there once a year and as other said, you are jammed with exercises with no time. Is it normal to only do one stuck pedal during 4 days of training ? That's the all problem !! you don't have enough time to practice. The company is gone say:"we send our crew on the Sim, so they have good training..." Well, doing a specific exercise once a year, do you think you will be good enough to do it on the real aircraft ? maybe yes...maybe not....It is good for working on procedures and crew interaction, but machine are complex now and we should get more time, that's the key.

Many times, the requirements dictate the un-reality. For example, what is the purpose of evaluating these maneuvers in a simulator: (1) inflight fire and smoke removal (unless the simulator uses an actual smoke generator), (2) emergency descent (a fixed-wing thing), (3) auto with a power recovery (unless evaluating for a required maintenance maneuver), (4) ditching (for an operator operating in the desert?), (5) emergency evacuation (the doors rarely open), (6) CRM in the SP cockpit (but it must be covered in depth), (7) wake turbulence avoidance, (8) maximum performance takeoff (when we can’t even get a consensus on what the maneuver is), or (9) a DME arc approach on an IPC (one time, back in ’85, I flew one with an engine fire, low fuel, etc.). The FAA requirements in many ways are archaic.

For example, with weather being a factor in nearly all HAA accidents, when was the last time a 297 ride really checked your ability to evaluate it and make a decision?

[QUOTE=One aspect of sim training that does not seem to have changed is the number of 2 hour slots available to cram all of this into. Would I want to spend more time in the sim? Personally - no thanks as I find it all very stressful. Thankfully retirement is imminent![/QUOTE]
You get what you pay for, it seems as if your company is having a case of checking the boxes.

One Hundred Freaking percent on the money!
As once a simulator instructor/examiner with experience in the major industry fields told me, he was often frustrated by the requirements of checking the same boxes regardless of whether the pilot/trainee is flying EMS, SAR /hoist, firefighting/slinging, Oil& Gas support or a corporate weenie.
Each operator should be responsible enough to generate its own dedicated program and the simulation industry should have more instructors/examiners who actually understand the related what if scenarios.
Yes, the all important 61.58 still requires to abide by the PTS, but soon there are going to (hopefully) be changes with the FAA moving to a different set of standards.
Having instructors who have never even seen the aircraft they train hurts quality of training and credibility.
As far as someone in previous posts mentioning lack of realism for T/R malfunctions and emergency procedures, try doing a loss of thrust or a realistic binding in a helicopter.
Show me an NG overspeed in a helicopter with a FADEC or EEC controlled engine in a helicopter that is not the actual malfunction.
We are talking about training through exposure here.
Simulation is valid enough for EASA to warrant use of it mandatory for some aircraft, and for the NTSB to generate a safety notice back in 2014 for the lack of it.

Just my two cents here!

As a single-engine, tri-blade, european built helicopter pilot in the Alps and - eventually - the Safety Manager of the Company I was invited to tryout an Ecureuil B3 simulator because the regulators (EASA) wants us to go the "extra mile" and perform an OPC + Helicopter Training on the simulator on an annual basis.
So, together with the Crew Training Manager, I went to the simulator once and - hopefully - never again. I left home thinking that it would be a great opportunity to practice "real" emergencies for the first time and whatever...
Let me say that both of us have a good experience on the real thing, flying it daily since years up to 500/600 hours per year. Well, the first 20 minutes were literally spent fighting with the totally messed up flight dynamics and no-real-feel on the flight controls of that damn' box! If an experienced pilot has to start a training trying not to rollover on a stupid takeoff maneuver you may say that a non-experienced one will kill himself in the blink of an eye. Nothing could be further from the truth! A young boy with no hours on the real thing flown it as a long time pilot on type and in a total fluent and comfortable way!
This was the first bell ringing in my mind! But I decided to go further, accepting that a familiarisation flight with the box was necessary before doing emergencies etc. (and the instructor was not so happy with that... we were evaluating a product so, no paid hours on our side!)
It ended up that after an hour of playing around I felt myself fairly better at the controls and I was ready to do some real stuff. The next hour doing emergencies and unusual attitudes recovery was the most pointless, "untraining" and messing flight hour of my life so far... The instructor was in rush to tick boxes and show how the emergencies was real and training effective... and again nothing could be further from the truth! The damn' box never played as a real AS350, no realistic loads on the flight controls make it impossible to familiaries on the emergencies as those are supposed to develop in the real helicopter. Rush on showing the efficiency of training - in reality - shown deficiencies and limits of the simulator against the every-day-real-action.
In the end, it was an unpleasant event and I did change my mind - that was really excited - about the opportunity to use flight simulators on light helicopter to practice real emergencies.

Hope that the VR technology will close the gap between real stuff and simulate stuff, one day.
In the meantime I'm afraid that it is a waste of time and money.

PE

Papa and Tott make very good points.

I taught at two Factory based Sim Training operations where one operation involved flying the actual aircraft as an Instructor and Check Airman in addition to the Sim.

The first was in the very early days of Helicopter Sim training and latter was decades later.

What I noticed over the years and the difference between the two Operators was significant.

The immediate difference was at the first....you hacked it or you failed no matter what your position in the Client's Corporate Chain of Command was......and at the other....no one failed....the worst that happened is they got a change of instructor for a check ride.

The other major difference was in the real lack of progress in matching actual flight characteristics of the aircraft being modeled.

One place sought to continually improve the system on a daily basis....it was an on-going effort.

At the other place....Instructors were told to minimize the negative reactions by avoiding situations that put those short comings on display.

I am a firm believer in the Sim as a teaching aid and with the advent better visuals and systems that provide for much better coordination of the Sim and Visual we will continue to gain value for money.

What we must do....industry, regulators, and Sim folks is to work together to find ways to gain the maximum benefit from the Sim Training.

I see the majority of the problem in this Sim Training thing is there are far too many sacred cows....and folks protecting their own rice bowls and that corrupts the system.

One company I worked for that used Sim training did so only after the Oil Company Client dictated they would.

They flew us from Africa via Europe to Texas....and without a bit of rest....had us in the Sim in the wee hours of the Texas Morning for our training.

Later they insisted they provide their own Training Captains and the Sim Operator would be just that....a Sim Operator....despite being a factory based training facility.

Folks....that is not the attitude that makes for effective training.

Take a moment and analyze how your own Operator....and Authority....and Sim Operator are conducting your training......and decide if there might be improvements and then make it known in a professional manner to those that can facilitate those improvements.

As an Operator....there is no sense wasting money on bad training at any level....it just doesn't pay to do that.

Sometimes you do not have all the answers and others might really have some useful insight that you could benefit from.

PapaechoIT - it is a shame you had such a negative experience in the sim, they really come into their own for larger, more complex aircraft where the handling qualities are less important than learning the procedures and processes in the RFM for handling emergencies.

Although I have gained a lot from sim training over the years, the sim owners/operators will tell you it is like the real aircraft when it clearly isn't.

You have two main problems - 1 is the modelling for the flight dynamics which is often a generic helicopter tweaked to approximate the real type (never does) and 2 is the projection system and latency within that - your brain is accustomed to the real aircraft in a real world and the response times of control inputs therein - if you lag that response you inevitably cause pilot induced oscillations (PIOs) until your brain gets used to the lag.

I used to find the 365 sim a nightmare for the first hour until adaptation took place and you played it like the computer game it is rather than trying to fly it like the real aircraft which it isn't.

The value in procedure and emergency training was high though so it will always be a trade off.

In discussions in the past where cost-saving has driven more training from the real aircraft to the sim, I have always opposed the idea that pure handling skills should be taught in the sim.

I agree with you, Crab. The value of a sim is NOT in the handling skills, it's in the procedures and systems training. And, for multi-crewed aircraft, the interaction between pilots in an emergency. Until you've had the fire light come on during a night takeoff from the ship, you don't know how you'll really react and, more importantly, you don't know how the other pilot will react to your actions and words. The real learning occurs during the debrief when you get a chance to watch how you reacted, listen to what you said, and participate in a professional discussion of how the emergency could have been handled better.
I attended annual sim training for more than 25 years. During that time, the flight dynamics and visual systems improved dramatically, but never reached the level of flying in the real aircraft. But the quality of the training improved continuously as we incorporated lessons from fleet experience into our annual course. You can't beat the value of that! Lives were saved through exposure to scenarios that had killed our colleagues...

I preferred the "Self Debrief" method when crew performance was just plain lacking.

I would take the video down to the training room....have the two "Students" grab their coffee....and when they got sat down and comfortable.....on came the video and I went out to get my own coffee,

Invariably.....left to watch their performance as spectators rather than participants....the actual debrief and subsequent training went a lot better as they were prepared to listen to suggestions for improvements.

An effective simulation flight model is more about matching pilot workload than it is about matching QTG plots. Unfortunately, the regulatory bodies like the FAA and EASA insist on flight models that match real aircraft data at the expense of matching workload.

In reality, a sim will probably never be an identical match to the actual aircraft, even if it had a flight model that matched the actual aircraft in every possible way. Too many cues are missing from the simulation environment, especially for small aircraft that are flown mostly in a VFR manner... and this is often why a lot of experienced pilots walk away from a sim disgusted.

But sims certainly can be used for learning and improving manual flying skills. The US Navy is doing it now... but they were smart and decided to go with unqualified devices that had flight models installed that matched the workload of the real aircraft rather than matching dots on a QTG plot.