Slashdot Mirror
Co-Pilots May Sim Instead of Fly To Train
CyberLord Seven writes "The Washington Post has up an article on a proposed new standard that would allow co-pilots, and co-pilots only, to gain most of their flight experience through flight simulators rather than through actual flight on smaller planes." From the article: "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." It should be pointed out this isn't just Microsoft Flight Simulator they are playing. These are motion-controlled capsules that simulate the realities of an aircraft's movement.
Didn't the 9/11 hijackers get most of their experience on sims? Never figured out how to land, but then again they didin't seem to need it....
Monstar L
There isn't a great deal in common between a Cesna and an A380. In the latter the computer translates your input into something that is safe for the plane - which it can do just as well with a virtual world and a virtual plane. There is no particular need to have great experience with small planes that, even if you could disconnect all of the fly by wire kit, handle in a matter so different that you might as well suggest that we train for driving big rigs on a bicycle.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of this technology has been risk reduced on military aircraft programs, and in general it has made things safer by giving pilots more realistic training before they even get into the cockpit of a high energy death machine. If I owned a multi-million dollar super jumbo I know I wouldn't feel too happy whenever a pilot sat at the controls for the first time, but I might be a little bit less concerned if they had already flown several hundred hours in a representative simulation.
Beep beep.
The advanced trainee also plays X-Wing Vs. TIE Fighter.
i can't figure out how much harder it would be to get them time in smaller aircraft. they don't have to actually go out and practice in a large passenger jet now do they?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The training for high-speed train conductors is mostly in simulators as far as I know. And that seems to be alright (though I do think commercial pilots have a tougher job on their hands, skill-wise). Granted, the first couple of *actual* flights might cause more anxiety if the co-pilot hasn't had to fly a real plane until there are passengers on board, but I wouldn't expect anything more serious than that. They're not the only ones in the cockpit anyway.
Though any trainee that breaks his Wiimote strap during simulation, I'd probably kick out of the program. That's simply unacceptable!
I like basketball!!1!
The next time you are on an airline flight, think of this: The first time each of the pilots stepped into the cockpit of the type of jet you are in, they had already completed training for that type of aircraft in simulators.
As long as a pilot has jet experience, their type rating training for other jets will be entirely done in simulators. And most of us agree that the real thing is easier to fly than a simulator.
That being said, a large amount of experience in real world flying is still invaluable. It is true that on most airline flights the autopilot handles more than 90% of the flying, but pilots still need the experience learning weather and the atmosphere. Here in the US a pilot is required to have 1,500 hours of flight time before becoming eligible for their air transport pilot certificate, and I think that number is appropriate.
I am not a professional pilot, but I frequent aviation boards and most everyone (except the accountants) are against this training. Just imagine an incapacited captain in a 747, with this co-pilot only trained in a sim having to do a no visibility, one engine out go around in a bad african airport. Long thread but worth reading for those interested at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2441 14
I've used the sims back in my AF days. They're really not that bad and can give you a lot of experience in dealing with the kinds of things you won't usually experience, as well as helping you get used to the more mundane tasks involved with flying. The only major differences are that:
1) Landings in a simulator are not really like real landings. They're close, but not exact. (This is because simulators are limited in the amount of force they can apply).
2) Your sensation of Aircraft motion in certain flight regimes is not the same. This is because a simulator cannot simulate actual centrifical effects (G Forces) or weightlessness which can cause confusion in a pilot.
Of course this is in the better simulators. Cheaper simulators have even more limitations. But even the expensive ones are still cheaper than an actual aircraft for training.
Ripley: How many drops is this for you, Lieutenant?
Gorman: Thirty eight... simulated.
Vasquez: How many *combat* drops?
Gorman: Uh, two. Including this one.
Drake: Shit.
Hudson: Oh, man...
I only fly small planes and gliders but I have several friends who are airline pilots/captains and read a lot on the subject. Many think that the simulator is actually better than the real thing for several reasons:
1. Better emergency training. The simulator operator can throw all sorts of things at you that you would never risk in a real airplane like, say, critical engine flameout with full load, gusty crosswinds and high density-altitude. And even if you were willing to take such risks on a real plane, you would have to wait for the right circumstances and would still spend most of your time flying to get ready for the next exercise. In a sim, a push of the button and you're back at the end of the runway waiting for the next disaster to be hurled at you by the torturer, er, instructor.
2. Emphasis on critical phases of flight. You can repeatedly train for tough instrument approaches, difficult holding patterns, etc. without wasting time boring holes in the sky.
3. Fly anywhere. Flying international? How about training for the hellish approach to the Hong Kong airport (well, the old one anyway, should be better now) in the sim?
I remember reading a story about a 747 crew grumbling about the treatment they received in the sim when the instructor threw a series of near-impossible scenarios at them. Shortly thereafter they had something similar to the above happen. Full load, hot day, hill off the departure end of the runway and the gusty crosswinds flamed an engine at rotation. Instantly training kicked in and the engineer threw the dump switches, pilot configured for the situation. They disappeared over the hill and the tower alerted rescue but then they reappeared as they came back for the emergency landing. They missed crashing on the hill by a few feet.
While I think that training in a real aircraft should still be in the curriculum, I would personally step on a plane piloted by a crew with 1500 hours of rigorous sim time before I would get on one piloted by a crew who got the required hours teaching kids in a 152 and then took a type-rating course. I'm not suggesting that the latter are not competant - but the former will be better trained for airline operations.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
My answer would be - No.
Background: I've actually held a job where some training was done in simulators and some was OJT - and simulators, while valuable, simply aren't as good as experience in the real thing.
I remember hearing once that Lufthansa co-pilots are trained in this exact fashion. It's very logical. In fact you can train better in a sim than in real life as you can safely simulate more extreme conditions and practice situations that you just can't create on demand in a real airplane. Flying an airplane isn't that difficult under normal circumstances. But each aircraft has its own subtle nuances that can lead to pilots getting into very dangerous circumstances that are hard to prepare for in any other fashion. Plus the cost of simulators has really dropped. For example, even if pilots were required to make several take-offs and landings in the simulator for every airport they fly in and out of, that would familiarize the pilots with the runways and maybe avoid the kind of accident we saw in Kentucky earlier this year. Even though the taxiways had recently changed, just being familiar with the what the horizon looks like, etc, might have clued them in sooner that they were on the wrong runway.
Commercial pilot training is changing drastically. Traditionally, pilots had to have considerable flying experience before moving into the commercial world. Most airline pilots used to be ex-military, and airlines wouldn't even consider training anyone with less than a thousand hours of flight time.
Now there's "ab initio training" - no previous flight experience required. This is still rare in the United States, which has a big pool of private and military pilots, but outside the US, it's becoming more common. Even Lufthansa is doing it.
Then there's ab initio first officer training. This trains co-pilots. Since, in larger aircraft, the first officer job involves more talking to the aircraft computers and not much stick and rudder work, there's a trend to "glass cockpit all the way" flight training. Traditional flight training starts out with aircraft equipped with minimal instruments, and the new pilot is taught to get an intutive, "seat of the pants" sense of flight control. That's changing; today, many of the small trainers have full glass cockpits. Some people think this is bad. Others think it inevitable.
Modern autopilots can manage most of the flight today, including landing. It's common to fly the autopilot, commanding altitudes and headings, rather than the airplane. Most large aircraft landings are still manual, but in low visibility conditions, only the autopilot can land the plane. The day may be coming when, if you're off autopilot on a commercial flight, you declare an emergency.
If you RTFA (or even TFS) you would see that nobody is talking about copilots having *no* real plane experience, only that a much larger portion of the flight hours could be on sims. TFA says this would work out to "about 70 hours of flight time and 170 hours in simulators".
Also, the odds of winding up in a scenario of the sort you describe are pretty darn slim. Still, given that the co-pilot will have had many hours of actual flight experiences, plus even more training in a sim that could actually give him simulated experience in "no visibility, one engine out go around in a bad african airport" scenarios (no real flight training will hopefully put you in such a situation), I don't think your worst case scenario is actually all that catastrophic.
Since the 1980's and the adevent of decent CGI Graphics (from companies like Evans & Sutherland) and very sophisticated 6 axis motion systems, bodies like the CAA and FAA have regarded hours in the Simulator as Flying Hours.
Sometimes, I refer to proper flight sims as the ultimate games console.
However there is no way that things like Microsoft Flight Simulator can reproduce the experiences of a real moving full size cockpit when you have a sudden decompression.
IMHO, anything less would not get approved.
OT Disclaimer
I first flew a Phantom F4 IN 1969. An F4 Simulator that is... I was 16 years old and an apprentice engineer.
Six years later I got a Degree in Control Engineering.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Based on my own experience, and those of friends who would rather pay $$ for instrument flightsim training rather than $$$ for actual training (for getting your instrument rating, you're already allowed to use some flight sims for accredited training) flightsims are incredibly useful. Even MS Flightsim does a fantastic job of getting you used to using the equipment (*if* they have it simulated: this isn't going to teach you how to use a Garmin 530, frinstance.) You get a feel for technique and can get great at translating radio calls into establishing holding patterns and stuff like that. Even with tricky stuff, like flying ground-reference maneuvers with a strong crosswind, flightsims are an amazing help.
And then you go to land in a real plane, having spent many hours in flightsims, and boy does it show. My instructor said I flew like a professional pilot with 500 hours of time until that last thirty seconds on final, when I flew like I'd just solo'ed. (Well, I *had*, basically.)
The point being: if you use a training aid it could mask real-world inadequacy, and a falsely confident pilot rarely lives to figure out what went hideously awry.
With all that said, if it's the copilot learning this way and the pilot's the PIC on final, or has quick access to the controls, it's probably a great idea, and it's sure way cheaper and way less risk on students (at any level) and their instructors.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
1. Hot woohoo in the virtual cabin! ...)
2. Avoids those messy in-air collisions
3. Who needs to land anyway, right FAA?
4. Easier to cuss out the trainer
5. HaXX0RZ can upgrade your Piper Cub for Gladiatorial Combat
6. Saves on jet fuel that funds terrorism
7. Prepares you for real-world situations like having Hot Coffee running on your Flight Simulator
8. No distractions from Flight Attendants (see the BBC show
9. The food is better
10. Electrons don't scream when they crash and burn.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It should be pointed out this isn't just Microsoft Flight Simulator they are playing. These are motion-controlled capsules that simulate the realities of an aircraft's movement.
They're playing X-Plane! Seriously - you do need full-motion sim hardware, but the software is $50 OTS.
Disclaimer, yes, I do own a copy.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I have very good friends who are airline pilots and they lament the move from stick and rudder to full autopilot. Airbus' are the worst offenders of this, but Boeing is catching up. And Co-Pilot is a dated term, BTW. Its First Officer now and, if the crew is using good Cockpit Resource Management, then the First Officer does a lot more than sit and twiddle their thumbs, like it was 30-40 years ago.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Here in the US a pilot is required to have 1,500 hours of flight time
/played in WoW and getting 62 days, 12 hours, 0 minutes.
1500 hours doing anything is nothing to sneeze at. To put that into perspective for games.slashdot readers, it's the same as typing
Thank you, Zonk!
Ummm. Is there any money to be had?
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
My father is an instructor at FlightSafety International - one of the most well-respected flight training centers in the world - and teaches on Piston model Beech / Ratheon aircraft. Pilots in the jet programs are - and have been for years - trained in simulators only. The simulators are so realistic that a corporate jet license does not even require that the pilot have been in a jet, as long as the proper training was conducted in a simulator. I'm not talking about 747s or stuff like that, I am talking about Citations, and King Airs. (small airplanes, in my opinion.)
The reason is: jets are WAY too expensive to operate to have training done in them.
A friend of mine (who will remain anonymous) works with the flight simulators at NASA Ames, the ones on the big hydraulic arms, which are FAA certified for pilots to qualify as 747 flying time.
I asked him if they were also certified to qualify for the Mile High Club (if the simulator's rock'n, don't come a knock'n). He said of course they were, but it was a good idea to turn off all the cameras, because otherwise everything you do in them is recorded.
They've got all kinds of programs for simulating any kind of air disaster, and there's nothing more exciting than "oh my god we're about to die" sex!
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
The people complaining about co-pilots being allowed to gain flight time in the simulator are misunderstanding the alternatives.
The choice isn't between a co-pilot with flight hours in a real plane, and an equal co-pilot with flight hours in a simulator. The choice is between a co-pilot with flight hours in a simulator, working a reasonable schedule, and a co-pilot who has flight hours in a normal plane but is working way too many hours because it is too expensive to train enough co-pilots for all the flights... Or maybe a choice between having co-pilots who trained in a simulator, and co-pilots who are falsifying their number of real flight hours.
"Pilots are kept in the loop because nobody wants a computer glitch to kill several hundred people."
Yeah! That's better left to the pilot.