What Is A Level D Simulator?

[AHRS]

Whilst I understand you can perform Base training on a Level D and thus operate your first flight on line training, is it due to the realism in graphic displays or performance realism that defines it?

Which of these (if any ) qualifies as a Level D? (No MsFS answers please.we know about the 767 level D thank you!):

CONCORDE

L1011-200 such as Redifusion (ex Gulf Air)

Trident 3C ex BEA

Hawker 800

Gulfstream GIV

Thanks

[None]

There are a lot of specific requirements for the simulator to be able to demonstrate. This first link below has a table that more simply shows you the comparison between the different types of sims approved by the FAA. I would guess other agencies have similar pamphlets available.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/5b7322950dd10f6b862569ba006f60aa/$FILE/Appx1.pdf


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/5b7322950dd10f6b862569ba006f60aa/$FILE/Signature.pdf

[TFE731]

I am fairly sure the first three on your list are not. As for the last two you need to be more specific some Hawker 800 and G-IV probably are, others will not be.

Your best bet is to ask any sim centre that you are considering using.

[Sl4yer]

Do you know of a working Trident simulator? Not that a 3C existed AFAIK.

Thanks.

[AirRabbit]

Hi AHRS

Whilst I understand you can perform Base training on a Level D and thus operate your first flight on line training, is it due to the realism in graphic displays or performance realism that defines it?
Which of these (if any ) qualifies as a Level D? (No MsFS answers please.we know about the 767 level D thank you!):
CONCORDE
L1011-200 such as Redifusion (ex Gulf Air)
Trident 3C ex BEA
Hawker 800
Gulfstream GIV

If you let me know the reasoning behind your question I would be able to give you a more complete answer; but, I'll start with the following: The type of aircraft has nothing to do with what level of simulator is assigned. Mr None gave you a couple of links that contain some information, but what he provided only scratches the surface. There are specific requirements that have to be met in each case and the two documents you get to in None's links are the basic document and appendix 1 (General Requirements) for the standards used by the US FAA. There are two other appendices in that document; one for objective tests and one for subjective and functional tests. The tests conducted in the simulator are the same tests conducted during the certification flight tests done in the airplane. The results of both tests are then compared to see if the simulator performs and handles within the established tolerances for the specific level of simulator. The higher up the ladder you go, the more tests, and the more detailed the test data has to be. There are other requirements as well - motion systems, visual systems, and sound systems are also more sophisticated and required to be a bit more extensive as you move up the ladder. There is an initial evaluation and then periodic evaluations to be sure that everything continues to operate as it did originally.

Here is another link that will take you to the Home Page for the FAA's National Simulator Program. It is this office that is responsible for establishing the requirements and then actually evaluating each simulator to see if it performs and handles like the airplane it is simulating - in accordance with the requirements. From this page, down the left hand side, you can select additional information about what it takes to evaluate and qualify a full range of Flight Simulation Training Devices.

If you still have additional questions, let me know what it is you're after and I can probably help you out.

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_i..._aviation/nsp/

[AHRS]

Trident Simulator

OVERSIGHT..IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A tRIDENT 3B ex BEA which I operated based at a blokes farm in Biggin Hill,costing 60 quid per hour.It was good more of a level C I think.Try it!

[AHRS]

Leve; D sim

Thank you kindly.I had flownal those sims(BAR COMCORDE-WHICH i HAVE ONLY HAD THE PLEASURE OF SAMPLING IN A MsFS) including a 777-200ER and A320-200 at CAE(Which i AM DEAD SURE ARE LEVEL D TYPES).

You could be forgiven for mistaking my line of questioning by thinking i am trying to correlate aic type with level of realism.I know that Level D sims are fairly recent introductionsI SIMPLY WISHED TO KNOW WHAT REFERENCE CATEGORY THOSE SIMS WERE(assuming little variations there in) as there may be variations of categories within the same type of sim depending on the manufacturere and certifier.The HAWKER 800 AND GIV I flew at CAE are glass cockpit versions.I did a detail at Gatwick for the Hawker and I SAW MINUTE DETAILS OF THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS AS I BROKE CLOUD INCLUDING THE PARKING LOT WITH CAR MOVEMENTS!The feel on the runway at touch down was less than realit felt like touching on canvass!The GIV had more impressive visual displays and had an upto dtae landscaped display of the city of Dubai with a the major real estate revelopments in place.tHERE WAS A SIM PROBLEM AND DEGRADED CONTROLS AND ALTHOUGH THE TAXI WAY SIGN BOARDS WERE IN PLACE NOTHING HAPPENNED COLLISION WISE DURING A RUNWAY EXIT EXCURSION!


SORRY FOR THE FOUL TEXT:I HAVE A KEY BOARD THAT IS ESSENTIALLY READY FOR DE-COMMISSIONING.

Another uninteligent question: How the hell do they transport the SIMS TO THE USER'S SITES?ARETHEY DIS ASSEMBLED AND THEN AFTER RE ASSEMBLED ON CLIENT'S SITE?

MY BEST REGARDS (ARE YOU A SIM ENGINEER?)

Your information AS WAS Mr. None's was thoroughly appreciated for its content and I shall refer to the links you provided me with.Thanks indeed to all those who took their time to respond

[AHRS]

Trident 3c

did you mean 3c NON EXISTENT IN sIM OR IN AIRCRAFT TYPE VARIATION?I understand 3c were developed and featured improved cockpit ergonomics after the BEA G-PARPI(?) crash on departure at Staines in 1972??China AND PIA I THINK OPERATED these

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Just because an aircraft is a recent type does not mean that a sim for that aircraft will be Level D; a sim for an older aircraft can also conceivably be Level D.

As noted above, the Level of the training device is related to the fidelity of the simulation and the degree to which it has been validated, not the base aircraft. You could conceivably have a Level D Sopwith Camel sim if you had the necessary flight test data available and built the sim to the right standards.

Similarly, there are times when it isn't economically justified to qualify a modern sim to the full rigour of Level D. Thus you can have a Level C device, say, for a completely modern aircraft; you can even have a mix of Levels for the same aircraft, if a training centre elects to buy a couple of (expensive) FFS Level D devices, and a couple of (less expensive) fixed base devices qualified to a lower level, using the latter for some parts of their syllabus.

One thing to bear in mind is that there are things which can make the sim better which are not covered by the Level rating; two sims, both to 'Level D', may have rather different graphics quality. Especially if they were originally qualified at different times, where the details of the qualification requirements have changed. The same also applies to aircraft characteristics and motion fidelity. The rules have changed over the years.
(It's much the same as for aircraft certification: what was certifiable to Part 25 20 years ago may not be certifiable today, but both and old and new aircraft are considered to be 'equivalent' Part 25 certified aircraft)

Generally the sims are built at the factory and tested, then disassembled and transported to the site, reassembled there, and extensively tested; it can take many months to get a sim up and running. With a 'repeat' order they may skip the factory assembly stage, and just assume it's going to go together on site, but I suspect that's rarely done.

[AirRabbit]

Thank you kindly.I had flownal those sims(BAR COMCORDE-WHICH i HAVE ONLY HAD THE PLEASURE OF SAMPLING IN A MsFS) including a 777-200ER and A320-200 at CAE(Which i AM DEAD SURE ARE LEVEL D TYPES).

You could be forgiven for mistaking my line of questioning by thinking i am trying to correlate aic type with level of realism.I know that Level D sims are fairly recent introductionsI SIMPLY WISHED TO KNOW WHAT REFERENCE CATEGORY THOSE SIMS WERE(assuming little variations there in) as there may be variations of categories within the same type of sim depending on the manufacturere and certifier.The HAWKER 800 AND GIV I flew at CAE are glass cockpit versions.I did a detail at Gatwick for the Hawker and I SAW MINUTE DETAILS OF THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS AS I BROKE CLOUD INCLUDING THE PARKING LOT WITH CAR MOVEMENTS!The feel on the runway at touch down was less than realit felt like touching on canvass!The GIV had more impressive visual displays and had an upto dtae landscaped display of the city of Dubai with a the major real estate revelopments in place.tHERE WAS A SIM PROBLEM AND DEGRADED CONTROLS AND ALTHOUGH THE TAXI WAY SIGN BOARDS WERE IN PLACE NOTHING HAPPENNED COLLISION WISE DURING A RUNWAY EXIT EXCURSION!

SORRY FOR THE FOUL TEXT:I HAVE A KEY BOARD THAT IS ESSENTIALLY READY FOR DE-COMMISSIONING.

Another uninteligent question: How the hell do they transport the SIMS TO THE USER'S SITES?ARETHEY DIS ASSEMBLED AND THEN AFTER RE ASSEMBLED ON CLIENT'S SITE?

MY BEST REGARDS (ARE YOU A SIM ENGINEER?)

Your information AS WAS Mr. None's was thoroughly appreciated for its content and I shall refer to the links you provided me with.Thanks indeed to all those who took their time to respond

Well, you should know that MSFS is NOT a simulator. It is purposefully designed, built, and sold as a game. Ask Mr. Gates. While some of the features contained in those games are relatively accurate, they are not the same below the surface. Most of the material is gleaned from publicly available sources and, in some cases, a flight crew member may have been paid to report on how a particular system works in the cockpit. However, that is not a “simulation.” That is programming a “cause” and an “effect.” It looks great – and it may be “fun” – but, its not a true “simulation” the way that word is understood in the aviation industry.

I don’t know what you think a “fairly recent introduction” truly is. The first simulator qualified by the FAA for what is termed “zero flight time” training was in 1982 and the first simulator equivalent to Level D was qualified in 1983. That’s 24 years ago – is that recent? I guess in some terms it probably is. But it terms of simulation – devices qualified in 1983 are now considered “dinosaurs.”

Simulators are disassembled at the factory after the purchaser has made a preliminary acceptance of the machine and its programming and it is transported to the facility in which it will be permanently housed. It is reassembled, tested, and checked, and then the regulatory authority is asked to come evaluate it for qualification at a specified level. After all of this is completed, it is then approved for use in a pilot training program.

And, no, I am not a simulator engineer.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

While I entirely concur that MSFS isn't a "simulator" in the sense the industry generally uses, there is a little wrinkle to this statement:

However, that is not a “simulation.” That is programming a “cause” and an “effect.” It looks great – and it may be “fun” – but, its not a true “simulation” the way that word is understood in the aviation industry.

Even "real" simulators use "special effects" at times; it's simply not practical to actually provide a physically meaningful model of some things, and they are generally "tuned" as a cause-and-effect. Things like pre-stall buffet fall into that kind of category.

There's always a conflict between the idealised modelling approach and the crude-but-effective one; it's a case of horses for courses, knowing what the tool will be used for.

[AirRabbit]

While I entirely concur that MSFS isn't a "simulator" in the sense the industry generally uses, there is a little wrinkle to this statement:

However, that is not a “simulation.” That is programming a “cause” and an “effect.” It looks great – and it may be “fun” – but, its not a true “simulation” the way that word is understood in the aviation industry.

Even "real" simulators use "special effects" at times; it's simply not practical to actually provide a physically meaningful model of some things, and they are generally "tuned" as a cause-and-effect. Things like pre-stall buffet fall into that kind of category.
There's always a conflict between the idealised modelling approach and the crude-but-effective one; it's a case of horses for courses, knowing what the tool will be used for.

Of course you are correct about some of the lesser systems in a simulator being cause-effect modeling. And, when all that is necessary can be accommodated with this approach - great! However, as I am sure you are aware, many simulator manufacturers and vendor suppliers are often at odds with each other in that the manufacturer of the simulator cannot warranty a "black box" provided by an avionics vendor. When that "black box" has a definitive effect on the interoperability of the aerodynamics of the airplane, it becomes critically important to everyone involved; and, as such, the cause-effect approach for something like the avionics interface with flight control computers is simply inadequate.

Naturally, there are limited circumstances when the fully vetted aerodynamic model, systems models, the avionics model, the controls model, etc. may be loaded into something like a lap-top computer. No argument about the accuracy of the resulting displays - but, in those limited cases, the result is not, and should not be considered to be, "flight training."

My fear, that I was attempting to point out in my earlier response, is that some would enter these forums with knowledge gained on MSFS and pretend to know (perhaps, they even believe that they do know) what it is they are talking about - when what they say cannot possibly be true beyond the capability of MSFS to accurately replicate the systems and avionics functions as well as the performance and handling qualities of the represented aircraft. I think there are just too many folks growing up with computers and being so reliant on them for accurate information, that some who may find their way into aviation may find it awkward or incomplete or even flat wrong to take something learned on a device like MSFS and put it into practice in an airplane - and expect it to work the way it should in that airplane. And, they may not recognize that error until it becomes evident to them at a critical time. A case in point is the bourgeoning "very light jet" market (at least in the US), where, as some of the advertisements luringly beckon, "All you need is a private certificate with an instrument rating..."

Certainly, I'm not saying that MS couldn't generate something more sophisticated than MSFS; but using aircraft and/or vendor flight test data or other validation data to program the MS product wouldn't, I think, allow it to be sold very profitably for anything approaching what the MSFS product sells for in the game aisle of the local computer store.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Don't really disagree. Where the cause-effect model usually breaks down in my experience is when you're trying to cater for abnormal conditions - which, given the degree to which simulators are used to train for failure cases, is quite important. Then the fact that light 'B' is lighting not in response to pressing the switch, but in response to some system operation dependent upon the pressing of the switch becomes vital. The elevators don't move to the position commanded by the column UNLESS the flight control system is working properly, etc.

The "simulated" versus "stimulated" debate for hardware is an interesting one. At first sight it would seem to be self-evident that it's better to have a stimulated piece of hardware, rather than a simulation of it's behaviour. But there are constraints - like transport delays, and assuring that the stimulation is actually valid - which sometimes make simulation a better approach.

[lefthanddownabit]

Here is a very basic list of what Level A, B, C and D means in terms of simulator capability in Europe. FAA is generally similar:

Level A
Complete enclosed flightdeck, all flight crew stations, all systems simulated.
Flight controls force v position tests with tolerances.
Basic motion and visual (night/dusk, limited field of view).
Objective flight tests, some with no tolerance other than "correct trend and magnitude".
Transport delay less then 300 milliseconds.

Level B (all training and checking, except takeoffs and landings)
As Level A, plus
Objective tests all have tolerances applied.

Level C ("zero flight time" for pilots with 1500+ hours in similar class of aircraft)
As Level B, plus
6 axis motion
180 by 40 degree continuous field of view, daylight capable visual.
Transport delay less than 150 milliseconds.
Extra objective tests for contaminated runways, controls dynamics, windshear, motion, etc.

Level D (zero flight time)
As Level C plus
Weather Radar simulated and co-ordinated with visual, TCAS, etc.
Objective sound and vibration tests.

Zero flight time includes base checks, but not the line check.

Some older sims will have "grandfathered" approvals based on the rules used at the time they were first approved. These have a G suffix, e.g. Level CG, but usually same training credits as normal Level.

Level D is an extremely high standard to achieve. By no means all full flight sims are Level C or D.

The age of the original aircraft can affect sim qualification, because if sufficient validation flight test data does not exist then a "special category" approval, based on subjective evaluation, is all you can get. That will be in the form of a letter from the CAA saying what training and checking can be performed. A Trident 3 sim for example could not even be a Level A device under current rules, and there's no chance of anyone flight testing one to get the necessary data now

As for MSFS not being a simulation, that's not true, but it is mostly about the eye candy. The MSFS aero model works in just the same way as in a Level D sim, only the data has much less resolution, less complexity, fewer coefficients and is not validated by anybody. The MSFS flight model is very simplified, so no one should expect to learn much about aircraft handling from it. What you can learn is radio navigation, procedures (though not on the included default aircraft), etc.

[AHRS]

Realism Of Msfs

Whilst I tend to agree with many things that Air Rabbit proclaims in other threads, I AM NOT SURE WHETHER HE IS QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH DEMEANING STATEMENTS ABOUT MSFS.I fully agree with Lefthanddownabit and thank him for highlighting the relevance of MSFS.

I am an avid Pilot and just as avid a simmer pilot.One of the greatest compliments I got from my fellow crew member at an early stage of my career was: You must be a simmer PILOT.i asked why??He replied.we dont tend to fly aeroplanes so damned accurately!

Here is a lesson for correlation.I have been operating MSFS since 1988.I started my flying career since 1990 when i rapidly gained my licenses(7 months) but it wasnt till 2000 when I operated my first commercial flight on a glass cockpit heavy turbo prop.With almost ten years of absence from flying and a meagre 300 hours behind me(I am now a seasoned Pilot), I aced the real Simulator and so was my base(managed Base in only 3hrs) and line training was just as satisfactory.I went to sim after only having read the manuals..and not even jump seated for observation.CBT was done later( shortcomings of the company).The secret...my approach to MSFS and its add ons!BUT YOU HAVE TO APPROACH IT AWITH SERIOUSNESS AS A PROFESSIONAL PILOT.NOT AS A GAMING IDIOT!I was regularly flying (not gaming !) with checklists whenever it was possible to use them.They helped me (and still do) with situational awareness,CRM,SYSTEMS APPRECIATION, INSTRUMENT INTERPRETATION,CROSS CHECK AND CONTROL,R/T WITH ATC OR SUPERVISING PILOT,Airmanship confidence,Flight Planning/thinking,..and yes.a certain amount of Aviation Judgement and technical know how.I PRIME MYSELF BEFORE MY IR and SIM sessions.It is if anything a confidence builder and Panel and instument scan sharpener,and can practice MCC quite effectively...and inexpensively too!

As AN avionics and PERFORMANCE ENGINEER I AM QUITE IMPRESSED WHAT THE MSFS can display and replicate(for those who condemn the use of 'simulator' for these devices).Way to go Micro Soft (and programmers at WILCO and PMDG and the likes of them).yours is a valuable contribution to Aviation and accolades will come to you in time...just keep perfecting your work...we wont mind paying more for it!

TO FURTHER EXPOUND THE VAUE OF MSFS (and I DO REALISE IT IS not A REAL SIMULATOR..for its cost you cant expect it to be!): I have been away from flying pursuing other projects and got my licenses renewed twice with ease (on the strength of practicing on MSFS augmented with relevant book work).I also had the opportunity to fly (with ease...both selected and Managed modes, in normal ops and with Engine failure in IMC of 1km vis)the HS800.GIV,A320-200, and 777-200ER(From Final Cockpit Prep to Engine shut Down)) having had no previous experience on JETS apart from reading a lot on JETS SINCE EARLY 80s(Handling The Big Jets by Sir DP DAVIES being a prime source amongs a myriad of other books and manuals) and practing on MSFS(iT IS NOT SO MUCH THE MSFS THAT I AM COMMENDING HERE BUDDIES..BUT IT IS THE WORTHY TYPE ADD ONS THAT FUNCTION UNDER THE AUSPICIES OF MSFS.MSFS IS A GOOD MOTHER BOARD PLATFORM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH YOU FLY AND 2004 IS ADEQUATE.HAVE YOU SEEN AND TESTED THE CONCORDE OR B747-400 PMDG OR THE 767 LEVEL D AIR RABBIT?I recommend you do so..then check your remarks you had offered me earlier!

The bottom line gents is that if you take two rookie pilots of the same level of experience and expose one of them to MSFS before hand and type him on the MSFS prior to commencing training of type x; you will see for yourself who is going to perform better in every aspect INCLUDING TIME TAKEN TO ABSORB AND PERFORM THE DETAIL TO THE REQUIRED STANDARD!I believe the MSFS with its assortment of add ons can be useful provided that they are approached in a disciplined and serious manner, and with appropriate theory augmented.It is idealy utilised with appropriate CONTROL ACCESORIES ,CHECKLISTS,CHARTS,MANUALS,and under supervision and with appropriate critique like any sim session.It should however be seen for its limitations and if used effectively can actually shave off time required to attain competency on a given type.Before training for a given type, it is however wise to read relevant manuals or observe how the type is flown in line ops or by way of real flight sim.This is to compare notes with the add on type on MSFS SO AS TO DETECT ANY ANOMALIES THAT IT MIGHT HAVE-DUE TO THE LOW COST OF PROVIDING THESE SOFTWARE, QUALITY CONTROL NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED.

[AHRS]

Msfs Vs Real Sim

I dare add......it was a lot easier to fly the real sim compared to the MSFS ADD ONs (due to their ergonomic awkwardness-which you adapt to as you would on a degraded aspect in a cockpit).There is ,however, more copius adrenalin flow from the real sim..but most certainly easier to operate and fly...the transition from the same type on MSFS add on to the real one could catch you open jawed with amazement as how realy simple real flying can be......sims are more awkward than the real aircraft....sort of like transitioning from a light piston aircraft with no automation and co pilot to flying these very stable and automated machines..ofcourse with a disciplined approach.An imminent crash in a real sim(and dare add in a real aircraft) ..are far more alarming than in a MSFS...but your heart beat and BP non the less escalates at a miniature level..IF YOU TAKE IT RATHER SERIOUSLY FELLOWS!

[rbr919]

If we look at AHRS orginal question another way.

Are you just looking at a way of not doing base training in the actual aircraft and therefore not really concerned as to the finer points of simulator levels.

If so basic requirements for ZFT;

A pilot undertaking ZFTT course shall have completed.........on an aeroplane having a MTOM of not less than 10 tonnes or an approved passenger seating configaration of more than 19 passengers.
(a)1500 hours flight time or 250 route sectors if a flight simulator qualified to level CG or interim C if used during the course; or
(b)500 hours of flight time or 100 route sectors if a flight simulator qualified to level DG , interim D or D is used during the course

and the Operator must have JAR OPs approval for ZFT course etc etc etc.

[AHRS]

Thanks ol chap

Thank you for steering this thread on course!

[mutt]

I can just see it now.......

Please Mr FAA man approve our new training course.... we dont need the $16million Full Flight Simulator (level D), we dont need the $8million Flight Training Device (Level 6), we dont need the Flight Management System Trainer, we dont need the aircraft manufacturer approved Computer Based Training program and we dont need the human interface......

Our new plan is to supply all crew with MSFS plus a couple of add-ons and then let them loose on the aircraft.....

Of course the insurance company agrees

Who was it who said.."a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?"

Mutt

[XPMorten]

Please Mr FAA man approve our new training course.... we dont need the $16million Full Flight Simulator (level D), we dont need the $8million Flight Training Device (Level 6), we dont need the Flight Management System Trainer, we dont need the aircraft manufacturer approved Computer Based Training program and we dont need the human interface......

http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html
http://www.flightmotion.com/
http://www.flightmotion.com/docs/win...cert_press.htm
http://www.flightmotion.com/docs/faa_approval.htm

M