8
Can Flight Simulators Do Everything?
Capt.Kip Caudrey
Director Simulator Evaluation & Standards
Alteon Training
1.0 Introduction
Although this paper will still address the theme “Can Flight Simulators Do Everything” I have taken the liberty of making modifications to take into consideration that not everyone at this Conference is familiar with Flight Simulation nor the common acronyms. I have therefore spent more time focusing on the current status of our Industry and where we are going, to hopefully make the paper of greater interest to you.
Can flight Simulators Do Everything?
The obvious response to this question is “no, of course not.” Anybody who has flown an aircraft knows that it is not possible to simulate everything. Many examples immediately come to mind:
- The challenge of flying into marginal conditions accompanied by strong crosswinds, rain, snow, ice, turbulence etc.
- The beauty of flying in formation around puffy cumulous clouds.
- The terror of landing a helicopter on the back of a destroyer at night.
- Air refueling
- The excitement of flying a fighter in formation at tree top height.
- Taxiing into large, high traffic airports.
- Malfunctions not in the Simulator which could never be anticipated. (Loss of panels, airborne collision etc.)
What else cannot be simulated?
Fear and some other human emotions.
What cannot be achieved with current technology?
Negative G
What could be improved with current technology?
1. “Training Value” in General.
2. Visual systems that add to training value
3. Improved Diagnostics
4. Standard malfunctions
5. Tools to improve Pilot communications
6. Windshear and Rain effects.
7. Aircraft Upset
What is the current state of Flight Simulation?
All Major Suppliers produce a Full Flight Simulator (FFS) that is form, fit, and feel, almost identical to the aircraft. Handling, system simulation, and control forces are essentially optimized; motion & sound when correctly tuned are also comparable to the aircraft. Instructor Operating stations are easy to use; powerful lesson plan editors are available and, when correctly used, permit the Instructor to focus on what the Crew is doing. Truly astonishing strides in the fidelity of simulation, and as a consequence training realism have been made by our industry in the past 25 years. Many of these technology advancements were made possible by dramatic increases in host and Image Generator computing power.Detailed visual custom data base scenes are now possible with realistic simulation of adverse weather, 3-D objects and the use of full color textures. This has provided pilots not only with more realism but also improved training with the ability to better assess depth perception cues both in the landing phase and in low level flight. However, I will suggest that considerably more can and should be done with these new powerful visual systems to improve training. More rigorous mathematical calculations of individual x-y-z tire interaction forces and moments with the runaway, and its contaminants, has resulted in a quantum step forward in providing crews with a realistic representation of the aircraft’s symmetric and asymmetric on-ground stability and control characteristics. The Industry has recognized that the number of malfunctions is not a measure of the training value nor the quality of the simulator; accurate replication of potential malfunctions requiring crew intervention is essential. IATA assisted by providing a list of 100 recommended malfunctions to be included in all FFS. However, few would disagree that although Aircrew Training and Training Realism has been significantly improved during the same period, it has not kept pace with Technology.
Change in Emphasis
Now many new challenges face our industry. Changes in training emphasis from handling skills to avionics management and crew management are already evident and will continue. We will see more young pilots specifically trained for airline operations who have not been recruited from the traditional sources nor will they have the experience base major carriers have been accustomed to. Some may never have had any aerobatic experience and may never have been inverted in an Aircraft. Many older highly experienced Pilots will retire; more airlines will form alliances; they will demand standardization of training equipment as well as training curricula. New airspace management and control will necessitate different training; AQP and similar programs will require new training methodology, FOQA derived information will result in improved knowledge of training weaknesses and be fed back into all training programs as it already is with many Operators. Above all else distance learning and use of the Internet will result in the greatest change as to how training will be conducted. This has begun but will undoubtedly expand rapidly. It is our responsibility to ensure that the power of new technology is driven by training requirements and implemented expeditiously. Our aircrews cannot wait for the lengthy time it takes for new regulations to be introduced.
What are the real Challenges for Airline Pilots in 2004?
There is still (but for how long?) a need for traditional stick and rudder skills, but it has been recognized that in an era of computers and glass cockpits, Pilots need to become, in effect, Managers; Managers of systems, Managers of information and even Managers of people. Almost anyone in this room could learn to basically fly an Aircraft in 20 hours or even less; that means to get it off the ground and back down again in more or less in one piece. The handling difficulty is, incidentally, inversely proportional to the speed of the aircraft. It is much harder to land a small slow aircraft than a large one; those of you who are Regional or Fighter Pilots may wish to point out during pay negotiations! However, to be able to manage the aircraft and crew is a significantly greater task which takes years of experience and practice. Unfortunately, not everyone in our Industry within our industry realizes this and we have in some areas stagnated in conservatism driven by commercial concerns. Let me ask you something? How would you feel about your open-heart surgery being conducted by a young surgeon who had never actually done it before or only practiced on a cadaver? Would you go to the dentist who has the old rope and pulley system that drills your teeth at 10 rpm? Well I admit that I am stretching the limits of a fair comparison but we do have Pilots authorized to fly zero flight time who can legally move to the left seat (Captain position) who have never actually flown the aircraft. They have been Certified Zero Flight time in the Simulator. Let me quickly add that there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the philosophy, my concern and suggestion is that the Pilot is not necessarily receiving the best nor most appropriate training available to him.
Simulator regulations
We should never lose sight of the fact that regulations provide the minimum acceptable standard. In the US the FAA wrote a draft Simulator Regulatory document called “Part 60” which was a sincere effort to standardize regulations between Europe (the JAA) and the FAA. Nothing extraordinarily different except that it demanded simulator Quality Performance Standards (QPS) which in short means training providers must have a structured organization to prove and demonstrate similar performance every day of the year, not just when the regulator visits. Several airlines in the US complained bitterly that this was going to cost a lot of money in current bad times, so a Committee was formed to review and dilute requirements. One example of an initiative affected by Commercial Concerns. This was a great pity and let me add that here in Australia the decision was wisely taken to immediately implement the draft with some changes to reflect national requirements. Unfortunately, even the new JAR STD1A (the European Simulator Regulatory Document) and Part 60 (including Australia) have not challenged the industry by “raising the bar”. These were ideal opportunities to do so but, and I can say this with Authority, the decision was made to hold the status quo in fear of Industry reaction. It has been left to the training provider to do it, but in a highly competitive environment it is an expensive bar to raise. Changes will not be made until it is mandated that additional training will be conducted in the Simulator. Current Simulator sessions are already very intensive.
2.0 WHAT IS NOT WELL SIMULATED OR COULD BE IMPROVED?
TRAINING VALUE IN GENERAL
But, what is Training Value? To one European Carrier it is the enormous importance they place in motion systems, yet we have often heard those who see minimal training value in 6 DOF motion systems. Lufthansa seeks to reduce LOFT time in the aircraft by use of real time synchronization with ATC; while another major European carrier does not envisage any LOFT transfer to the simulator; their training time is already fully occupied meeting current mandatory procedures. It is common to hear that an operator would like to train more in the simulator but availability and cost are overriding factors. Should essential training requirements not be driving technology? Should we users not be constantly pushing Simulator manufacturers? Well of course we do, but our individual input does not necessarily reflect an industry position. In search of market discriminators Suppliers, let’s not forget they are Engineering Companies, R&D areas which they perceive, not always correctly, to be needed by all Training Organizations. One Supplier designed the ability to custom build storm cells, continuous time of day (whereby if one stays in the simulator for 12 hours the sun with appropriate shadows can be seen passing overhead) and a curved earth visual model, among many other non-training value added features. It would be naive to believe all Simulator Operators could write up a common list of training requirements but as Users we could do a better job.
Regulators still put very demanding criteria on handling issues, which, as has already been suggested, is no longer the prime issue in today’s highly avionics integrated commercial aircraft, that rarely needs to be flown manually. Of course handling is important, it is a question of degree. Simulator Qualification tests consist primarily of auto and manual testing of the Flight data package, auto motion testing, auto sound testing and objective visual testing. The “flyout” will normally consist of a 4-hour subjective evaluation of all systems, and, depending on which authority, flight into the far extremes of the flight envelope. Are these tests really focusing on where the simulation needs to be of the greatest integrity or is it just traditional? In some jurisdictions the POI (Principal On Site Inspector) or equivalent, will ensure training requirements can be met. Regulators have also been instrumental in driving technology change in simulation. However, to quote one senior Inspector, they see their role to be one primarily of enforcement and relying on them to promote technology is a bit like putting the “cart before the horse” the users must be stating the need. It is clear that the rate and direction of future added training value would be significantly improved by a realistic description of need within the constraints of simulator time availability and scheduling. Realistic in the sense that there is, for example, no point in designing an integrated world wide global environment system if there is no intent, no available Simulator time nor resources to permit its use.
3.0 VISUAL SYSTEM TRAINING VALUE
a) In spite of the enormous gains in Visual technology the Visual System is still the weakest link. The Industry has done a great job in added realism and yes, that does mean training value, but there is a real need to harness the power of the visual into the areas where training is needed most. It is somewhat bemusing, that one manufacturer boasts a curved earth model, Continuous time of day, yet SMGGS which is a taxi guidance system is an option and cloud illumination as the Aircraft breaks through cloud on a CAT 2/3 approach is not considered important and not simulated. This is a vital cue for Pilots and easy to Simulate. In the traffic pattern and in the final landing phase not much has changed in 10 years! Is it not extraordinary that each wheel on the bogey of an aircraft is, or can be, simulated to give lateral displacement characteristics, yet no attention is paid to visual accuracy in the landing area? Current systems have the capability to simulate high detail in the touchdown zone but regrettably we still use that power elsewhere in the scene. Using a substantial amount of Image Generator (I.G.) processing power to model family day toys, adds little or nothing to training value. It behooves us to better understand what type of visual cues are significant for specific training tasks. We then need to intelligently apply this knowledge by looking closely at our visual data base modeling and I.G. resources to maximize training value returns. In the absence of this training focus, we tend to widely spread our I.G. computing power throughout the database and add the “bell and whistle” features for esthetic effects. Our industry would benefit from a regulated specification standard that would define the minimum depth and level of visual cue detail that would be required for specific training tasks. We need:
- Moritorium on polygons and light points