Co-pilots May Sim instead of Fly to Train

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_9...=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

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.

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.

"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

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.

"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 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...

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

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

"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