Co-pilots May Sim instead of Fly to Train

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Initially, I found this from a /. post, but reading what the
Washington Post says, this definitely earns it the controversy it's
generating. And, let it be known that this is *NOT* MSFS, but actual
real motion sims (possibly with X-Plane).

http://tinyurl.com/y8w4da

Flying Without Wings
Rule on Simulators Could Change How Pilots Are Trained

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; D01

Before stepping into the cockpit of a commercial jetliner for the first
time, pilots have racked up hundreds of hours in the air, usually at
the controls of small planes.

In coming years, they may get most of their flight experience without
ever leaving the ground.

The international organization that sets the world's aviation
regulations has adopted a new standard that could alter the nature of
pilot training. In essence, prospective co-pilots will be able to earn
most of their experience in ground-based simulators.

The move is designed to allow foreign airlines, especially those in
Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly
train and hire flight crews. The United States isn't expected to adopt
the new rules anytime soon, but international pilots trained under the
new standards will be allowed to fly into and out of the country.

The change is generating some controversy. Safety experts and pilot
groups question whether simulators -- which have long been hailed as an
important training tool -- are good enough to replace critical early
flight experience.

"In a simulator, you have pride at stake," said Dennis Dolan, president
of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, which
has raised questions about the new standard. "In a real airplane, you
have your life at stake."

Officials at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
which is setting the new standards for pilot licensing, said the role
of simulators has grown substantially in most airline training
programs. Airlines often train co-pilots for new aircraft only in
simulators, without flying; such a co-pilot's first flight on the new
plane is with paying passengers on board.

The new rules apply only to co-pilots of commercial planes. Captains,
who are in charge of those aircraft, must have hundreds more hours of
flight experience. The new standards will allow people to become a
co-pilot on a jetliner with about 70 hours of flight time and 170 hours
in simulators. Other licenses require about 200 hours of flight
experience. Co-pilots perform many of the same duties as captains.

In the United States, a co-pilot of a commercial plane must have at
least 250 hours of experience, some of which can be earned in
simulators, federal regulators said.

Each country sets its own licensing requirements, which can be tougher
than the ICAO standards. The Federal Aviation Administration is not
expected to adopt the new license in this country. But experts say that
if the number of people learning to fly in the United States continues
to drop, the FAA could be forced to adopt the rules.

The new standards allow airlines to more properly train and supervise
young pilots before they develop bad habits at flight school or flying
alone, industry officials said, adding that the devices better prepare
pilots for today's sophisticated cockpits.

"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us
no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said
Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport
Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a
better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable
"white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in
real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of
dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space --
conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and
pilots said.

In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace
early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department
of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in
Florida.

"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
effective training method."

Still, Howell and others say simulators have helped make aviation far
safer than it was just a few decades ago. Full-motion simulators with
advanced computer graphics are exact replicas of airplane cockpits,
down to the switches and circuit breakers.

The graphics displayed on cockpit windows have become so advanced that
pilots can watch baggage carts rumble across taxiways and see wisps of
clouds rush past their windows and even snow drift across tarmacs.
Full-motion simulators -- giant boxes atop moving legs -- can toss
crews around in bad turbulence and even duplicate the
thud-thud-thudding of a jet streaking down a runway for takeoff.

Pilots use the devices to practice difficult approaches to airports,
recovery from engine failure and what to do when they encounter extreme
weather -- all scenarios that are too dangerous to attempt in an
aircraft. The simulators also have become instrumental in teaching
pilots about managing the increasingly complex and computerized
cockpits of modern jets.

In the United States, simulators help pilots adjust to new aircraft and
keep them up to date on safety measures. They also are used to teach
pilots how to manage modern cockpit systems, how to work together and
how to troubleshoot problems before they get out of hand.

"They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an
airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter,
director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.

Like most major carriers, United Airlines has a big training center,
and instructors rely heavily on simulators to train pilots. On a recent
afternoon, pilots Ron Davis and Jeff DePaolis took an Airbus A320
simulator through situations they could never attempt in a real plane
because they are too dangerous.

In one simulator scenario, they were approaching Denver International
Airport in poor visibility. Suddenly, about 600 feet above the ground,
DePaolis noticed that the wind was rapidly shifting. He alerted Davis
to the hazard. Then a computerized voice blared: "Wind shear! Wind
shear!"

The cockpit jolted and felt as if it were falling. Davis pulled back on
the control stick and shoved the throttles to full power. The plane
throbbed and seemed to hover. Then, slowly, it inched safely back into
the sky.


BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFhyhLyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtX6AKDh6N+7B+0iEiOmdc+zFV QKr7u8mwCgkt2d
dLRugNQR6mo3v2TO9pESltM=
=anNX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jose[_1_]]

> "Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us
> no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said
> Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport
> Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a
> better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

My gut feeling is that piloting time in a small aircraft is invaluable
experience, and serves to connect the driving of those giant aluminum
tubes full of self-loading cargo with the flying of real airplanes
through the air. Of course, I fly small planes, have never flown an
airliner (or a full motion sim) and we all know what the human gut is
full of. :)

> In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace
> early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department
> of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in
> Florida.
>
> "There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
> training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
> effective training method."

I don't know how one could conduct such a study without trying it. The
proposal seems to be a fair enough way to try it. There will always be
an experienced captain in the cockpit.

We'll see.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> "Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us
> no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said
> Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport
> Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a
> better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

Uh-oh. He forgot to consult the experts on this group! Now he's in
trouble!

> However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable
> "white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in
> real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of
> dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space --
> conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and
> pilots said.

Just connect the sim to VATSIM; then you can train pilots and
controllers at the same time.

> In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace
> early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department
> of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in
> Florida.
>
> "There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
> training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
> effective training method."

There's no proof that it won't be just as effective.

> "They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an
> airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter,
> director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.

Those are fighting words in this newsgroup.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> My gut feeling is that piloting time in a small aircraft is invaluable
> experience ...

Gut feelings are unreliable in aircraft.

> ... and serves to connect the driving of those giant aluminum
> tubes full of self-loading cargo with the flying of real airplanes
> through the air.

Those giant tubes are just as real as tiny tin cans. Furthermore,
they are so different that I question how much value there is to
learning first in tin cans.

> I don't know how one could conduct such a study without trying it. The
> proposal seems to be a fair enough way to try it. There will always be
> an experienced captain in the cockpit.

Simulation put men on the moon. It must work pretty well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> If you've flown one, you've flown them all. The numbers are different,
> that's all.

Then why does flying one aircraft not entitle you to fly any aircraft?

> Nope. Real men flew a real machine and made a real landing on
> a real moon.

They learned how to do it with a simulator. There was no training in
the real thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Flying is flying. Cessna or Space shuttle. They fly the same.

Those two craft fly very differently.

> Wrong again as usual.
> Try a little more research.
> They were doing REAL landings, in real machines.

No, they were not. No practice runs were conducted. Everything was a
simulation of one kind or another. They could not go to the moon just
to practice going to the moon.

> If I'm not mistaken, Armstrong even had to punch out of one when he
> lost control.

You can't punch out of a real landing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>> "There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
>> training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
>> effective training method."
>
> I don't know how one could conduct such a study without trying it. The
> proposal seems to be a fair enough way to try it. There will always be
> an experienced captain in the cockpit.


We conduct just such a study by letting the furriners try it first. Personally,
I'm wondering why I wasted all these years nursing when I could have been flying
as captain on a major before I had enough time to fly cancelled checks in this
counrty single pilot IFR.

Is it too late to sign up?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[john smith]

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/apollo_llrf.html

Mxsmanic wrote:

>Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>
>
>>Flying is flying. Cessna or Space shuttle. They fly the same.
>>
>>
>
>Those two craft fly very differently.
>
>
>
>>Wrong again as usual.
>>Try a little more research.
>>They were doing REAL landings, in real machines.
>>
>>
>
>No, they were not. No practice runs were conducted. Everything was a
>simulation of one kind or another. They could not go to the moon just
>to practice going to the moon.
>
>
>
>>If I'm not mistaken, Armstrong even had to punch out of one when he
>>lost control.
>>
>>
>
>You can't punch out of a real landing.
>
>
>

[Kev]

Well, as much as we grunt and groan about how everyone needs to do it
the way we did (six miles uphill both ways in snow), it's the way of
the future.

Heck, I still think young people should train on manual drive cars, but
I'm out of date :-)

The Army trains soldiers in tank simulators. The merchant marine uses
ship bridge sims to train pilots of huge super freighters. The Navy
uses submarine sims. And so forth.

On the one hand, you could argue that with say, the Airbus computer
overrides, even a non-pilot passenger could handle the sidestick and
throttles and never stall in the air.

On the other hand, I'm always reminded of that story in one of the
pilot mags a few years back, about the fully loaded 747 taking off from
SFO. It lost an engine right away, and the young co-pilot tried to use
the yoke instead of the rudder to straighten out. This popped up a
spoiler on one side (kills lift so the plane banks) and the plane
stopped climbing. The pilot and a jump-seater nearly had a heart
attack, and yelled at the co-pilot to get off the yoke and use rudder.
They missed a mountain by mere feet. Moral of the story? I dunno :)

Cheers, Kev

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/apollo_llrf.html

As you can see, this is a simulator. It wasn't possible to practice
with the real thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> On the one hand, you could argue that with say, the Airbus computer
> overrides, even a non-pilot passenger could handle the sidestick and
> throttles and never stall in the air.

The flip side is that, with Airbus, even an experienced pilot can
crash. These are the unavoidable and interlocked advantages and
disadvantages of fly-by-wire systems that have no full overrides.

> On the other hand, I'm always reminded of that story in one of the
> pilot mags a few years back, about the fully loaded 747 taking off from
> SFO. It lost an engine right away, and the young co-pilot tried to use
> the yoke instead of the rudder to straighten out. This popped up a
> spoiler on one side (kills lift so the plane banks) and the plane
> stopped climbing. The pilot and a jump-seater nearly had a heart
> attack, and yelled at the co-pilot to get off the yoke and use rudder.
> They missed a mountain by mere feet. Moral of the story? I dunno :)

How had the co-pilot been trained? A simulator would have behaved
just like the real thing, so that could not be the source of his
error.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
> > On the one hand, you could argue that with say, the Airbus computer
> > overrides, even a non-pilot passenger could handle the sidestick and
> > throttles and never stall in the air.
>
> The flip side is that, with Airbus, even an experienced pilot can
> crash. These are the unavoidable and interlocked advantages and
> disadvantages of fly-by-wire systems that have no full overrides.

An experienced pilot can crash any aircraft, so that's no argument.
The upside of the Airbus system is that the plane can automatically
avoid the most common death traps, like stalls on go-around or
microbursts.

> > On the other hand, I'm always reminded of that story in one of the
> > pilot mags a few years back, about the fully loaded 747 taking off from
> > SFO. It lost an engine right away, and the young co-pilot tried to use
> > the yoke instead of the rudder to straighten out. [..]
> > They missed a mountain by mere feet. Moral of the story? I dunno :)
>
> How had the co-pilot been trained? A simulator would have behaved
> just like the real thing, so that could not be the source of his error.

That's why I said I don't know the moral of the story :) At first, I
wanted to argue that more real-life training before moving to airliners
would've helped. But his reaction was par for a twin engine piston
with a dead engine, where banking into the good engine is not uncommon.
So you could argue that if he'd only ever been trained on a 747 sim,
he might've not had that tendency to use the yoke.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> define "simulator"

Anything that simulates something else. If you consider the very
crude simulation attempts made by NASA to be equivalent to the real
thing, then you cannot possibly object to anyone training for the real
thing in a modern full-motion simulator, which is far more advanced
than what NASA had forty years ago.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> An experienced pilot can crash any aircraft, so that's no argument.
> The upside of the Airbus system is that the plane can automatically
> avoid the most common death traps, like stalls on go-around or
> microbursts.

So can experienced pilots.

Essentially Airbus tries to substitute wired-in logic decided upon by
designers and engineers for pilot competence. What Airbus doesn't
seem to understand is that you cannot simultaneously keep the pilot
out of the loop in dangerous situations _and_ allow the pilot to
handle dangerous situations. Unless, perhaps, Airbus is trying to
eliminate the need for a pilot altogether, which I think is unwise and
very premature at this point in time.

> That's why I said I don't know the moral of the story :) At first, I
> wanted to argue that more real-life training before moving to airliners
> would've helped. But his reaction was par for a twin engine piston
> with a dead engine, where banking into the good engine is not uncommon.
> So you could argue that if he'd only ever been trained on a 747 sim,
> he might've not had that tendency to use the yoke.

Indeed. I think the most logical conclusion is that it's best to
train with whatever you plan to fly (or with a simulator that
simulates whatever you plan to fly).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Then you don't have a simulator.
> MSFS is not a "simulator" as you define it.
> I'm glad you finally got the point that it's a toy.

I understand why you are doing this, but you'll find that I have a lot
of patience.

"Just like the real thing" means within the context of the simulator's
objectives. Many simulators qualify when used as intended. The
various NASA simulators to which you've alluded each simulated some
aspect of flight in a way that was "just like the real thing";
however, they all failed to match real life in one or more other
respects (which they also have in common with all other simulators).

Only real life perfectly matches real life. But many aspects of real
life are not important for certain well-defined tasks. One can learn
to perform these tasks perfectly from a simulator if the simulator
perfectly simulates all the important aspects of the tasks.

One can learn to use a GNS530 GPS perfectly inside Microsoft Flight
Simulator, because simulations of the unit available for the simulator
precisely duplicate its real-life functionality. You can go directly
from the simulator to the real thing without missing a beat, and
perform the task of operating it perfectly with no previous experience
in using the real thing.

The simulation of the unit does not include the three dimensional
appearance of the unit or the texture of the control knobs and
buttons, but these are unimportant to the task of operating the unit,
and so the lack of simulation is irrelevant to the simulator's realism
in context.

> And since your "flying experience" all comes from a toy
> that does not " behaved just like the real thing", you don't have a clue
> as to what "real" flying is like.

Following that line of reasoning, the astronauts had no clue how to
land on the moon, since they could only use simulator toys before
actually attempting it. Many of their simulators were far less
comprehensive than a typical PC simulator today.

> And since you don't have a clue as to what "real" flying is like, you have less
> of an understanding of flight that a 10 yo kid that got a Young eagles flight
> because they have been in something that "behaved just like the real thing".

As you'll see from the above, I've invalidated this assertion.

> Therefore, if you want to learn about real flying, STFU and listen to people
> who have been in something that "behaved just like the real thing". Even if
> it's that 10 yo kid.

I don't share your emotional investment in this debate, which allows
me to remain objective and clear-headed. The role of simulation in
all types of man-machine interfaces is vitally important today, and
its importance is increasing. I've no doubt that the time will come
when people will learn to fly at least commercial airliners without
ever actually touching the real thing prior to a summary checkride, or
even prior to actually carrying paying passengers. I don't see any
technical obstacle to this. The only obstacles are psychological and
emotional.

Indeed, even today, someone with 5000 hours of intensive simulation
experience covering a very wide array of in-flight possibilities would
probably be a better pilot than someone with 5000 hours of real-world
experience spent sitting idle in a cockpit watching the figures change
on the FMC and trying not to fall asleep.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Indeed, even today, someone with 5000 hours of intensive simulation
> experience covering a very wide array of in-flight possibilities would
> probably be a better pilot than someone with 5000 hours of real-world
> experience spent sitting idle in a cockpit watching the figures change
> on the FMC and trying not to fall asleep.

An unrealistic comparison, I think. An airline pilot with 5000hrs of
real-world experience has spent a significant number of hours getting
beat up annually in a simulator exposed to a wide array of emergencies,
simple and compound. Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part
of pilot training, but there are situations that can never be
simulated, and it is their real-world experience that pilots call upon
to save their aircraft when the shiite hits the fan.

The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
aboard. There will never be a replacement for experience IMO.

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> An unrealistic comparison, I think. An airline pilot with 5000hrs of
> real-world experience has spent a significant number of hours getting
> beat up annually in a simulator exposed to a wide array of emergencies,
> simple and compound.

That would count as simulator experience. I said 5000 hours of
real-world experience.

The average airliner pilot has spent vastly more time in a real
cockpit fighting off boredom than in a simulator coping with
emergencies.

> Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part
> of pilot training, but there are situations that can never be
> simulated ...

A lot more situations can be simulated than experienced in real life
(if one wishes to survive the experience), and it is thanks to
simulators that pilots are better prepared for emergencies today.
Many of the things they practice on simulators would never be safe to
attempt in real life, and others are so rare that they are never
likely to see them (but at least they'll be prepared if they do).

In modern commercial air travel, which is very safe, there are many
emergencies that no pilot has ever experienced in real life; this
being so, it is impossible for a pilot to depend on any real-world
experience when dealing with such emergencies, since it is
overwhelmingly probable that he is seeing such an emergency for the
first time. Simulation greatly improves survival rates for such
emergencies by giving pilots experience with them in the safe but
realistic environment of a simulator. Without that simulation
experience, quite a few of them would be killed when the real thing
comes along. The real world doesn't train you for potentially deadly
emergencies.

> ... and it is their real-world experience that pilots call upon
> to save their aircraft when the shiite hits the fan.

They don't _have_ any relevant real-world experience. That's why they
try simulation.

> The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
> doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
> power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
> with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
> aboard.

Actually, there were four people controlling the plane, and it was
being steered by a DC-10 flight instructor who had been deadheading on
the flight.

None of them had any previous experience with anything like this at
all, so both real-world and simulator experience were irrelevant
(although I seem to recall that the instructor had pondered similar
scenarios in the past, but had not tried them).

The crew succeeded in part because of proper CRM, not because of
technical skills with something this foreign. They can (and do) learn
CRM in simulators, rather than in real life where it can be dangerous.

Luck also played a substantial role in this crash. The combined 103
hours of experience of the flight deck crew was definitely a factor,
but it was experience that could have been acquired in either real
life or a simulator. It was important in keeping them calm and
cooperative and organized; flying the plane was only a small part of
it.

See

http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/ua232.shtml

to learn the details, including the correct spelling of the captain's
name.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> If you've flown one, you've flown them all. The numbers are different,
>> that's all.
>
>Then why does flying one aircraft not entitle you to fly any aircraft?
>
>> Nope. Real men flew a real machine and made a real landing on
>> a real moon.
>
>They learned how to do it with a simulator. There was no training in
>the real thing.

There are multiple types of "shuttle simulator". Go look at

spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/factsheets/asseltrn.html

for all the details. The pilot training includes a real aircraft
configured to fly like the high-powered brick...er...shuttle:

" Pilots training for a specific mission receive more intensive
instruction in Orbiter approach and landing in Shuttle Training
Aircraft (STA), which are four Gulfstream II business jets modified
to perform like the Orbiter during landing. Because the Orbiter
approaches landings at such a steep angle (17-20 degrees) and
high speed (over 300 miles per hour), the STA approaches with
its engines in reverse thrust and main landing gear down to increase
drag and duplicate the unique glide characteristics of the Orbiter"

As for the moon landings, there was a full-size training device, again,
with similar characteristics as the moon lander. This is what Nomen
referred to. More details at

www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/photo/LLRV/index.html

[Blanche]

I'm not really sure where the contradictions are in this story, other
than the writer forgot (or doesn't know) that no one, NO ONE goes
from flying spam cans to a major carrier without

1) substantial flying multi-engine/multi-jet time
2) substantion full-motion simulator time

Living in Colorado I've been to the United training facility many
times (and flown the 737 sim), and know instructors there. The pilots
are required to spend a fair amount of time every year in the sims.

I don't understand what would be different with this "new approach"
to pilot training. I don't know any military that sends new pilots
out without substantial hands-on, in-the-air training.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Shuttle Training
> Aircraft (STA), which are four Gulfstream II business jets modified
> to perform like the Orbiter during landing.

They sawed the wings off?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Shuttle Training
> > Aircraft (STA), which are four Gulfstream II business jets modified
> > to perform like the Orbiter during landing.
>
> They sawed the wings off?

http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show2_912a.php?id=04-067&gl=912

Several modifications were made to Gulfstream II corporate jets to turn them
into the STA. Among the changes was the modification of the thrust reversers.
They produce large amounts of drag by diverting the engine's air intake forward,
producing reverse thrust. By reversing the thrust and lowering the main landing
gear, the STA pilot creates additional drag, which makes it possible to mimic
the Shuttle's steep landing approach. Control surfaces on the modified wings of
the aircraft have been altered or added to make the STA function more like those
on the Shuttle. Inside the aircraft, the left side of the cockpit has been
modified to look like the commander's station on the Shuttle (the right side of
the cockpit remains outfitted with conventional aircraft instrumentation to aid
regular flight). The windows on the left side can be masked to simulate the view
seen through the smaller windows in the Shuttle's cockpit. When the
instrumentation in the real Shuttles' cockpits is updated, the STAs receive
similar updates.

The Shuttle Training AircraftThe most important modification, however, is the
inclusion of a special flight control computer, the Advanced Digital Avionic
System (ADAS). The ADAS is responsible for making sure that the STA handles like
the Shuttle during approaches by controlling the thrust reversers and control
surfaces. It does this using a technique called "model following." The computer
has been programmed with information about the Shuttle's parameters during an
approach. During flight, it performs rapid calculations to make the STA's flight
parameters match those of the Shuttle. The input from the astronaut piloting the
aircraft is routed through the ADAS. The computer implements those instructions
in a way consistent with Shuttle flight.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> There are multiple types of "shuttle simulator".

They are all simulators.

And I was talking about the Apollo program, not the Shuttle program.
One might conceivably train in a real shuttle (at horrendous expense,
of course), but not in a real Apollo vehicle.

> for all the details. The pilot training includes a real aircraft
> configured to fly like the high-powered brick...er...shuttle:

It's not a real shuttle, though. Therefore it is a simulator.

> As for the moon landings, there was a full-size training device, again,
> with similar characteristics as the moon lander. This is what Nomen
> referred to.

But that's a simulator. The astronauts learned to do everything in
simulators. They had zero hours in the real thing when they finally
did go on a real mission to the moon.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> I don't understand what would be different with this "new approach"
> to pilot training.

It is psychologically distasteful to old-school pilots, who prefer to
believe that something magic occurs in a real aircraft that cannot be
duplicated in a simulator, and that this magic must be experienced in
order to learn to fly.

> I don't know any military that sends new pilots
> out without substantial hands-on, in-the-air training.

Some parts of the military use Microsoft Flight Simulator as part of
their training.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> It is psychologically distasteful to old-school pilots, who prefer to
> believe that something magic occurs in a real aircraft that cannot be
> duplicated in a simulator, and that this magic must be experienced in
> order to learn to fly.

It also happens to be true.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from but to me it's like being told -
no, more like lectured on what food tastes like by someone who has never had
a sense of taste, but has read all about it.

You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak from
a background of experience in both areas.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> It also happens to be true.

There's no such thing as magic.

> I'm not sure where you get this stuff from but to me it's like being told -
> no, more like lectured on what food tastes like by someone who has never had
> a sense of taste, but has read all about it.

Taste is different from eating.

> You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak from
> a background of experience in both areas.

You speak only for yourself, of course.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> There's no such thing as magic.

No, but until humans can function completely separate from emotion and
stress, and the psychological impact they have on performance, experience in
a simulator will never be equal to the real thing. Confidence in one's
ability to perform a task comes from prior experience under similar
conditions - the conditions in a sim are nothing like real life.

> > You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak
from
> > a background of experience in both areas.
>
> You speak only for yourself, of course.

No, I believe I speak for quite a few people here. But, even if that
weren't true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
who is talking from a background of zero experience doesn't have much
credibility in the subject matter.

BDS

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The average airliner pilot has spent vastly more time in a real
> cockpit fighting off boredom than in a simulator coping with
> emergencies.

No surprise here, it's a part of the job. What great insight did you
pull this from?

> > Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part
> > of pilot training, but there are situations that can never be
> > simulated ...
>
> A lot more situations can be simulated than experienced in real life
> (if one wishes to survive the experience), and it is thanks to
> simulators that pilots are better prepared for emergencies today.
> Many of the things they practice on simulators would never be safe to
> attempt in real life, and others are so rare that they are never
> likely to see them (but at least they'll be prepared if they do).

No argument here, this is the simulator's purpose. Reread my statement
"Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part of pilot training" My
point was (and still is) there are situations that can't be duplicated
in a sim due to its limitations. When these rare situations occur it's
up to the crew's experience & piloting skills (CRM too) to save their
own butts

> Without that simulation experience, quite a few of them would be killed when the real thing
> comes along. The real world doesn't train you for potentially deadly emergencies.

Again, no argument. You're just being repetitive here.


> > The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
> > doubt Al Haynes was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
> > power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
> > with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
> > aboard.
>
> Actually, there were four people controlling the plane, and it was
> being steered by a DC-10 flight instructor who had been deadheading on
> the flight.

You're nitpicking here, Haynes was PIC and coordinated control of a
crippled aircraft. As nobody had ever dealt with this severe of an
emergency before they were using their experience & CRM and "thinking
outside the box" to save the plane. You are wrong when you say
real-world experience was irrelevant as it saved most of the people on
that plane. Steering a jet with thrust control only was probably never
taught - it was the airmanship of Capt Haynes & crew that kept all from
being lost.


> The crew succeeded in part because of proper CRM, not because of technical skills with something this foreign.

Okay, you have just showed your total ignorance on this subject.
Without technical skills, CRM alone wouldn't have kept the plane from
becoming a lawn dart.


> Luck also played a substantial role in this crash. The combined 103 hours of experience of the flight deck crew was definitely a factor, but it was experience that could have been acquired in either real life or a simulator.

Luck was absolutely a factor, even if you can't quantify it. The bigger
factor IMHO was the "103 hours of experience" (not sure where you got
that metric from) of the flight crew. That experience could not have
been gained in a sim because nobody (then) ever thought it possible
that all three hydraulic systems could be lost on a DC-10 so I suspect
it was never part of the sim profile. Aircraft designs have been
updated since that accident. Nowadays, having learned from UAL232 I'm
guessing there are a few more emergencies that are handled in sim
training. Included are probably double flameouts, probably fallout from
the Pinnacle CRJ crash two years ago.


> It (CRM) was important in keeping them calm and cooperative and organized; flying the plane was only a small part of it.

That's what being a professional pilot is about - keeping your cool
when things aren't going exactly by the book. If you think "flying the
plane was only a small part of it" you just haven't learned a thing
from participating in this forum...

[BDS[_2_]]

I tried an experiment at work today along the lines of this discussion. We
used our ASA sim configured with a Baron as the aircraft. This sim is
approved by the FAA for flight and proficiency training - we're not talking
MSFS here, this sim is meant for IFR proficiency training.

I had two employees with zero flying experience (neither sim nor actual)
attempt the ILS-6 at KBDL with the weather at minimums (200 and 1/2). Both
of them were successful on their very first attempt when using the flight
director for guidance and although there were some huge excursions along the
way, both got the aircraft to the runway threshold - both failed very early
in the approach when they attempted to do it without the help of the flight
director.

Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it in
the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? - just
because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it counts.

The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual experience.

I did my first skydive quite awhile ago before tandems were popular. I
remember we went over everything on the ground at the airplane before going
up. The jump master explained everything and we went through it
step-by-step; now the door opens, now you shift yourself partially out the
door, now you hang from the strut, etc. We did that several times so
everyone felt comfortable. We all knew we were ready - it seemed pretty
simple really. Then we took off and climbed to altitude. Let me tell you,
when that door flies open and the wind is rushing by and you have to shift
yourself out the door with your foot being blown back and the ground down
there 3500 feet below, it was all quite a shock and a rush compared to that
"simulation" we did on the ground.

BDS

[Kev]

BDS wrote:
> Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it in
> the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? - just
> because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it counts.

True, it doesn't mean you can't either, or that some sim time wouldn't
have helped.

Think of all the non-pilots who manage to get a plane down (with some
external guidance) when the pilot is incapacitated in-flight. My wife
refuses to learn to take flying lessons, but she's comfortable doing
emergency scenarios on the sim, and it makes me feel better knowing
that she has even "just" sim practice.

For that matter, who needs sims? I remember my first flight. The CFI
let me take off and fly. He landed the first time, then I took off
again and landed (without help) the second time. Much of that was dumb
luck (and zero winds ;-) but it happens all over the country every day.

> The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual experience.

I "gut feel' the same way, but I'm guessing that future sims will do so
a lot... partly because actual experience doesn't let you play out a
lot of dangerous scenarios. For example, I was surprised several
years back when I tried an engine-out in clouds in MSFS just for fun.
Guess what happened as I glided down? The AI slowly spun down and
tipped over, because of no engine vacuum! Holy moly, eye opener.
This is not something that happens in real-life practice sessions
because we don't actually shut down the engine.

Regards, Kev

[BDS[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> BDS wrote:
> > Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it
in
> > the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? -
just
> > because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it
counts.
>
> True, it doesn't mean you can't either, or that some sim time wouldn't
> have helped.

Agreed - sim time is valuable for many things, but I do not believe that it
can take the place of real life training and experience. Each has its
place, and each is valuable in its own way.

> I "gut feel' the same way, but I'm guessing that future sims will do so
> a lot... partly because actual experience doesn't let you play out a
> lot of dangerous scenarios. For example, I was surprised several
> years back when I tried an engine-out in clouds in MSFS just for fun.
> Guess what happened as I glided down? The AI slowly spun down and
> tipped over, because of no engine vacuum! Holy moly, eye opener.
> This is not something that happens in real-life practice sessions
> because we don't actually shut down the engine.

It happens when you practice partial panel with instruments covered up -
obviously the engine is still running but if you are lousy at partial panel
all that may do is get you to the scene of the crash faster.

That said, there is no doubt that sims can give you training in scenarios
that would be impractical, difficult, or too dangerous to set up in real
life. That's what simulator-based recurrency training is all about.

BDS

[Jose[_1_]]

>>This is not something that happens in real-life practice sessions
>> because we don't actually shut down the engine.
>
> It happens when you practice partial panel with instruments covered up -

Yes, but then you =know= you don't have the AI. If it's a surprise to
you, you may follow the failed AI into the ground. (Ok, chances are
good you're visual, and if you're not, you're in doo doo anyway)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Beckman]

I didn't notice if you mentioned this to our Albatross (my eyes tend to
glaze over even when his crap is just being quoted...) but AFAIK, to this
date, no one has been able to bring the Al Haynes scenario to as successful
a conclusion as Capt Al did...

In A Simulator...!

Go figure.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Andrew Sarangan]

Simulators are used for everything, from designing bridges, to
skyscrapers, integrated circuits, airplanes and spacecrafts. Simulators
are even used for making other simulators. I doubt there is anything
done in this world today without first doing a computer simulation. In
aviation, FAA has its own definition of what a simulator is, but that
does not make every other PC based simulator just a game. We have a
ancient piece of crap at a local FBO in which you can legally log
simulator time. If it weren't for that fact, no one would pay a dime to
sit in it. But people pay $25/hr for the priviledge of using it.





BDS wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > There's no such thing as magic.
>
> No, but until humans can function completely separate from emotion and
> stress, and the psychological impact they have on performance, experience in
> a simulator will never be equal to the real thing. Confidence in one's
> ability to perform a task comes from prior experience under similar
> conditions - the conditions in a sim are nothing like real life.
>
> > > You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak
> from
> > > a background of experience in both areas.
> >
> > You speak only for yourself, of course.
>
> No, I believe I speak for quite a few people here. But, even if that
> weren't true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
> who is talking from a background of zero experience doesn't have much
> credibility in the subject matter.
>
> BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> No, but until humans can function completely separate from emotion and
> stress, and the psychological impact they have on performance, experience in
> a simulator will never be equal to the real thing.

That's why it's called a simulator.

However, a simulator doesn't have to provide identical experience in
order to accomplish its purpose (which, in this case, might be to
train airline pilots).

> Confidence in one's
> ability to perform a task comes from prior experience under similar
> conditions - the conditions in a sim are nothing like real life.

They can be made as close to real life as required. Try it.

> But, even if that
> weren't true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
> who is talking from a background of zero experience doesn't have much
> credibility in the subject matter.

Anyone who depends on credibility is already making a serious mistake.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it in
> the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? - just
> because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it counts.

No, it just tells you that you don't believe they could do it for
real. Without actually trying it, you'll never know.

There's a good chance that they could do it for real, depending on
their personalities.

> The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual experience.

Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.

> I did my first skydive quite awhile ago before tandems were popular. I
> remember we went over everything on the ground at the airplane before going
> up. The jump master explained everything and we went through it
> step-by-step; now the door opens, now you shift yourself partially out the
> door, now you hang from the strut, etc. We did that several times so
> everyone felt comfortable. We all knew we were ready - it seemed pretty
> simple really. Then we took off and climbed to altitude. Let me tell you,
> when that door flies open and the wind is rushing by and you have to shift
> yourself out the door with your foot being blown back and the ground down
> there 3500 feet below, it was all quite a shock and a rush compared to that
> "simulation" we did on the ground.

That was you. But not everyone is like you.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> I "gut feel' the same way, but I'm guessing that future sims will do so
> a lot... partly because actual experience doesn't let you play out a
> lot of dangerous scenarios. For example, I was surprised several
> years back when I tried an engine-out in clouds in MSFS just for fun.
> Guess what happened as I glided down? The AI slowly spun down and
> tipped over, because of no engine vacuum! Holy moly, eye opener.
> This is not something that happens in real-life practice sessions
> because we don't actually shut down the engine.

That's a typical scenario for which sims can provide life-saving
experience.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> It happens when you practice partial panel with instruments covered up -
> obviously the engine is still running but if you are lousy at partial panel
> all that may do is get you to the scene of the crash faster.

If you want real-life practice, shut down the engine, and make sure
that it is not restartable. Otherwise it's just ... simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> You're nitpicking here, Haynes was PIC and coordinated control of a
> crippled aircraft. As nobody had ever dealt with this severe of an
> emergency before they were using their experience & CRM and "thinking
> outside the box" to save the plane. You are wrong when you say
> real-world experience was irrelevant as it saved most of the people on
> that plane. Steering a jet with thrust control only was probably never
> taught - it was the airmanship of Capt Haynes & crew that kept all from
> being lost.

Nobody had ever done what that crew did in terms of flying. None of
their real-world experience helped. The cooperation and
professionalism of the crew had nothing to do with flying.

> Okay, you have just showed your total ignorance on this subject.
> Without technical skills, CRM alone wouldn't have kept the plane from
> becoming a lawn dart.

The technical skills required were not especially great.

> Luck was absolutely a factor, even if you can't quantify it. The bigger
> factor IMHO was the "103 hours of experience" (not sure where you got
> that metric from) of the flight crew. That experience could not have
> been gained in a sim because nobody (then) ever thought it possible
> that all three hydraulic systems could be lost on a DC-10 so I suspect
> it was never part of the sim profile.

It was never part of real life, either. Nobody had any experience
with it, period.

> That's what being a professional pilot is about - keeping your cool
> when things aren't going exactly by the book.

That has nothing to do with flying. A great many professionals in
other domains are exactly the same way. The situation would be the
same during brain or heart surgery, with no airplane in sight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[LWG]

This is an interesting point, but I think incorrect. There was a very
interesting book about the DC-10 that came out a number of years ago. The
Sioux City incident was not the first one where control was lost, albeit for
different reasons. The locking mechanism on the cargo door of the DC-10 was
electromechanical, not hydraulic like on others. An electric motor was used
to pull toggles over center to lock the cargo door to the fuselage frame and
floor. That meant that when the locking mechanism jammed (and the locking
lever was capable of being jammed when forced to close), the fuselage
underwent an explosive decompression when the locking toggles failed,
rather than having the hydraulic mechanism gradually "overpowered" by
pressure differential. The control cables for the empennage were routed on
the underside of the floor, and when the fuselage underwent explosive
decompression, the floor buckled and the cables jammed. I think the first
incident happened over Windsor, Ontario. There was another in Ermenonville,
France. After that the DC-10 pilots actually practiced, in the sim of
course, flying the airplane by using differential thrust.

So, I agree with the premise, but I think the detail is wrong. I recognize
that in Sioux City the reason for the failure and the extent of control loss
was different. Captain Haines is one of my heroes.

> The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
> doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
> power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
> with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
> aboard. There will never be a replacement for experience IMO.
>

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
> > It happens when you practice partial panel with instruments covered up -
> > obviously the engine is still running but if you are lousy at partial
panel
> > all that may do is get you to the scene of the crash faster.
>
> If you want real-life practice, shut down the engine, and make sure
> that it is not restartable. Otherwise it's just ... simulation.

Maybe so, but it's a far cry from the type of simulation you are doing
sitting in front of your PC. The level of stress is much higher and the
pilot gets experience performing under stress. This doesn't matter if
flying a sim is your goal in life, but it helps if flying in the real world
is.

BDS

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> > Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it
in
> > the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? -
just
> > because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it
counts.
>
> No, it just tells you that you don't believe they could do it for
> real. Without actually trying it, you'll never know.

Would you care to sit in the back seat when someone tries this?

Do a search of the NTSB records and see how many "continued VFR" type
accidents you can find.

> There's a good chance that they could do it for real, depending on
> their personalities.

Preposterous.

> > The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual
experience.
>
> Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.

Obviously nothing, including facts and real world evidence will suffice to
convince you.

> > I did my first skydive quite awhile ago before tandems were popular. I
>
> That was you. But not everyone is like you.

Yes, that is true.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Maybe so, but it's a far cry from the type of simulation you are doing
> sitting in front of your PC.

There are all different types of simulation, and they all have their
purpose.

Just idling an engine is not at all the same as losing it completely,
and in this instance, a PC simulation may actually be closer to
reality.

> The level of stress is much higher and the pilot gets experience
> performing under stress.

There's a lot more to flying than stress. Stress isn't any good if
you don't know what to do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Would you care to sit in the back seat when someone tries this?

No. But until you do it, you're poorly placed to make any
pronouncements about it.

That's what simulators are all about. What good is practicing a
procedure if you die in the process?

> Obviously nothing, including facts and real world evidence will suffice to
> convince you.

Facts and real-world evidence are persuasive. Emotional outbursts,
repetition, and personal attacks are not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> No. But until you do it, you're poorly placed to make any
> pronouncements about it.

Coming from you that is a pretty funny statement.

Hey, it's been fun but now this is way past tedious so au revoir.

BDS

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Nobody had ever done what that crew did in terms of flying. None of
> their real-world experience helped. The cooperation and
> professionalism of the crew had nothing to do with flying.
>

You've contradicted your earlier position with this statement. Without
crew cooperation (how many did it take to control the crippled acft?)
all would have been lost.


> > Okay, you have just showed your total ignorance on this subject.
> > Without technical skills, CRM alone wouldn't have kept the plane from
> > becoming a lawn dart.
>
> The technical skills required were not especially great.


Remind me again, how someone with no flight time would have *any*
insight into this?


> > That's what being a professional pilot is about - keeping your
cool
> > when things aren't going exactly by the book.
>
> That has nothing to do with flying. A great many professionals in
> other domains are exactly the same way. The situation would be the
> same during brain or heart surgery, with no airplane in sight.

Yes it has everything to do with flying - WTF was the subject of this
thread? This forum?
It seems to me your reality disconnect makes it impossible for you to
follow a rational discussion (which leads to argument) When you
contradict yourself, and make broad statement without the life
experience to back it up, what little credibility you have goes down
the sh!tter.

Other than that I enjoy reading your posts : )

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> You've contradicted your earlier position with this statement. Without
> crew cooperation (how many did it take to control the crippled acft?)
> all would have been lost.

In part, yes. But that's not flying skill.

> Remind me again, how someone with no flight time would have *any*
> insight into this?

Flight time is not a prerequisite for such reasoning.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Blanche writes:
>> I don't know any military that sends new pilots
>> out without substantial hands-on, in-the-air training.
>
>Some parts of the military use Microsoft Flight Simulator as part of
>their training.

Read my sentence again.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> Read my sentence again.

Why?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.