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.
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.
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.
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
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! --
And that is EXACTLY what simulators are the worst at doing. Proper cockpit management is impossible to get in a simulator, because something is always going wrong, because that's what you'll be tested on, and that's what you come to expect in a simulator. You go through engine failures RIGHT at v1, single engine approaches with a missed (because the weather mysteriously just got a little worse than the atis right at mins), etc., etc. In real life, you don't have engine failures every day - you have them once a career, if you are unlucky. These aren't the things killing people any more. Misunderstanding a landing clearance, setting up for the wrong approach, dealing with fast moving line of thunderstorms, and doing all this while you are TIRED or distracted or simply not expecting something does. Look up what the last ten commercial transport accidents have been about.
Just a few weeks ago, a 757 landed in EWR on a taxiway parellel to a runway. It vanished from the news quickly because no other airplanes happened to be on that taxiway. If there was, 200+ people would have been smoked, and you would still be hearing about it, along with all sorts of great ideas how to make sure it never happens again - but the crew happened to be lucky that day. There are actually quite a long list of reasons why it occured, which nobody had ever trained for before, because it was a unlikely set of circumstances. The F/O had been in the aircraft less than a year, and it was the Captain's first flight off IOE. Lack of experience in the aircraft, the REAL aircraft, definitely was a contributing factor there. Proper cockpit management is not an easy, programmatic thing, because it's all about trying to allow not only for the unexpected, but for your own, inevitable mistakes. The only way to get experience in making mistakes is to have lots of time to make them, in an environment where you are not expecting to make them. In other words, in day-to-day flying. I think that the fidelity of the simulators doesn't matter much where this kind of experience is concerned.