L3 A320 simulators handling quality

[CW247]

So, I've been in a 3 month old L3 sim recently. Not the first time I've found these to be horribly sensitive in pitch and yaw. I remember a few years ago having the same experience on a different continent. Eventually you get used to them and the EFATOs and crosswind landings are OK but the first 2 or 3 are often horrible to look at. But it's not about getting used to them is it? They should reflect the aircraft better. An older generation of sims managed it just fine. It's not just me, my partners have felt the same way.

I'm confused why trainers don't say anything to L3? They are churning out loads of these all over the world.

[Goldenrivett]

An older generation of sims managed it just fine.

Not quite. My early simulator experience in Comet and Vanguard (VC9) only had freedom of movement in pitch and we thought they were great. However they were not approved for zero flight time and we had to do expensive base training. As simulators became more "realistic" with motion cues, they can become more of a distraction if your rely heavily on your sensed accelerations.

The problem all motion simulators face is the physical limits of motion (due to the length of the movement jacks). The initial acceleration cue felt during the yaw, say with a crosswind landing, is correct - but the sim motion travel has to stop and return to centre neutral ready for the next motion input. If your own acceleration senses are more sensitive than average then you may interpret that return to neutral as being another motion cue and react with a control input before any visual effect is observed. You then become "out of phase" with the sim. I had a similar problem with an early 737-200 simulator - but no problem at base training where real life accelerations are true.

If possible - try to ignore what you feel and only react to the visual or what the instruments tell you.
See this article which describes the problems with all simulators which have motion cues.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8671729

[vilas]

By older generation may be he means little before this L3. Surely not 707sims which were simply terrible and had no visuals. The problem seems to be with the some manufacturers. Generally CAE are OK. I have experienced one L&M sim that was very sensitive not at all close to real A320.

[Bus Driver Man]

Could this be because older sims used to have the actual hardware from the A320 installed? In particular the SECs, ELACs and FACs.
On newer sims, these computers are replaced by software simulation. So it comes down to how well this software can reproduce the actual handling characteristics of the A320. (Not great, in my opinion. I prefer the older (CRT screens) A320 sims as well. )

If you look at the Lufthansa training device list, you can see that their sims are equipped with different hardware or software simulated hardware:
https://www.lufthansa-aviation-train...ining-devices/

[vilas]

As I said the problem mentioned is with simulators made by a few companies. It is not generational. I am sure these problematic simulators are cheaper priced. May be the technology they use to keep the cost down. CAE simulators have been good and even better with later series. CAE has done away hydraulics the motion is electrically imparted.

[ZFT]

It is somewhat complex to compare A320 FFSs across the various Airbus data standards, let alone manufacturers (or even operators) especially with the latest standard(s) using very different approaches with the NFL flight data and binaries being supplied by GO5 to the TDMs now.

Additionally, Airbus aren't helping matters with their data in Stnd 1.9 which was CEO with sharklets having all aero effects from the sharklets zeroed out in the data.!!

Unless you are comparing simulators with identical simulated standards, any comparison is IMO very difficult.

[Roj approved]

A recent session in one of these new cheaper sims, during a OEI go around, I had full back-stick, 5° roll and full rudder, the a/c rolled to about 25°, beta target was fully deflected, and we continued to descend.

I mentioned it to the Check Captain, and we all watched as the pitch slowly came up, then all of a sudden it pitched to about 20° nu, the roll got canceled by the rudder I put and I was fighting to keep the thing upright as the original inputs actually started to take hold.

We tried it again with a similar result, and when mentioned to the Techs, they shrugged and said there is nothing they can do.

Apparently the “technique” is to raise the nose to about 5° nu and get about 1/2 rudder in first, then apply TOGA, and try to control it from there.

A little bit negative training me thinks.

But “it’s certified“😩

[PGA]

@ZFT:

what is GO5 exactly?

[ZFT]

Originally Posted by PGA

@ZFT:

what is GO5 exactly?

It is the department of Airbus responsible for data for FSTDs

[PGA]

Thanks !

[Le Flaneur]

Most transport category aircraft are strongly statically stable in all three axes; as a result there are relatively heavy control forces when maneuvering off the trim condition, when making large corrections, or when using lead compensation to quicken the aircraft’s response. The combination of long transport delay, heavy control forces, and limited motion and visual cues results in the simulator being much more pilot-in-the-loop oscillation (PIO) prone than the aircraft when making large, rapid corrections or attempting tight closed loop control. The best control strategy in simulators is to set an initial pitch and power target that you have memorized, then make fine corrections.

[Fursty Ferret]

A recent session in one of these new cheaper sims, during a OEI go around, I had full back-stick, 5° roll and full rudder, the a/c rolled to about 25°, beta target was fully deflected, and we continued to descend.

This is why most regulators have a whistle-blowing policy.

I have also perceived newer simulators to be twitchy, but perception is everything and any delays or mis-cueing between control inputs / visual / motion will exacerbate the problem.