Slashdot Mirror
Royal Canadian Air Force Sees More Sims In the Future of Fighter Pilot Training
dakohli writes "Currently, Canadian Fighter Pilots spend about 20% of their 'stick' time in Simulators. RCAF General Blondin states that this will rise to 50/50 in the future. The article goes on to state that the U.S. Army is moving in this direction, although the U.S. Air Force is a little more skeptical. Aircraft are expensive to fly, and if the fidelity of a simulator is good enough then perhaps real pilots will spend even less time actually in the air. Slashdotters, do you think that this will actually make recruiting pilots more difficult, or is it a sign of the things to come beyond Military Aviation?"
Good one, hoser.
rewriting history since 2109
The fidelity is already there. Flight time in the sim is nearly as good as the real thing, especially considering when you are up on a motion platform.
The sims are great for procedure training since you can simulate failures which would be expensive or impossible to simulate in a real aircraft. More sim time = less cash spent on keeping the real aircraft in the air but with the same amount (or more) experience for the pilot being retained.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
In a decade or two, most of them will be flying drones anyway.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Why not self flying aircraft? The human is the weakest link in the chain.
I vaguely know a guy who is a flight enthusiaist, but not an actual pilot... He's clocked thousands of hours in flight sims and sometimes does trial simulations of real passenger craft routes and the like.
I think he's crazy, but apparently actual pilots often call him for advice on landing at one specific airport in south east asia...
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
Many military aircraft are already pilotless or directed from the ground, and that trend will continue too. The "Top Gun" era is coming to a close.
the USAFs F-22 and upcoming F-35 both only come in single seat versions... there is no tutor flights, you go from sim to solo. If a sim can train a pilot who has never flown a F-22 or F-35 to fly one... why not keep pilots sharp for cheaper. I know the RCAF will let pilots take CF-18s 'home' (to an airport near their home), just to keep flight hours up. All the fuel, wear, and maintenance on the jet costs a lot, just for some stick time.
Take off! To my great white north... I never realized as a Canuck how many times I say eh!
I live in Canada. The only people who are dangerous are the idiots south of the border. North? Polar bears. And they're drowning. East? Greenland. Yeah. I'm terrified of the Greenland invaders. West? More of the same idiots from south of the border. (Not everyone south of the border is an idiot. It just seems that way sometimes. Like electing George W Bush to anything beyond dog catcher.) So, really, the only real threat to Canada comes from the country that supplies our military gear. So, if we ever got into a war with them, I kind of doubt we'll be getting replacement parts any time soon. Canada has no business getting involved with the imperialist programme of the USA and its lapdog the UK. It's bad enough we're a colony to both of them...
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
This is the Canadian armed forces who are so chronically underfunded and undersupported by their government that their submarines blow up on their remaidened voyage, that their special forces capture and torture to death children caught stealing from their base in Somalia.
I despise the US idea of shoot anything that moves but I'd much rather have that than an underprepared military with little support from the government whose dirty work they do.
At Kapyong in Korea the Canadians showed they the best soldiers in the world. Those days are long long gone.
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
Canadians Armed Forces give their soldiers more training. American Armed Forces give their soldiers amphetamines. No. Really: "Dexedrine became the drug of choice for American bomber pilots, being used on a voluntary basis by roughly half of the U.S. Air Force pilots during the Persian Gulf War, a practice which came under some media scrutiny in 2003 after a mistaken attack killing Canadian troops." "'Go' pills for F-16 pilots get close look: Amphetamines prescribed in mission that killed Canadians". Los Angeles Times. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Go-pills-for-F-16-pilots-get-close-look-2687644.php
"make recruiting pilots more difficult"?
So, [gender neutral diminutive term], do you want to kill people for a living? Do you not care if you can't tell the difference between when you're *really* killing people, or when you're just doing it in sim? Does the fact you'll sometimes really be killing people make up for only getting paid $25k? Boy, do we have the job for you!
Meanwhile, on the rare occasions Canadians (or whatever other country you're from) actually feel like their country/way of life/etc is under meaningful threat, they'll volunteer to do it. My grandfather and great grandfather did; I would if I felt there was a real need..
Fuck peacetime overspending on the military. The US now spends more on "defense" than the next 17 largest spenders put together (or spends more than every other country on earth put together, depending on how you calculate it). I really don't give a shit if imperial expansion sucks so badly that we can't even get poor people to sign up any more.
Simulators can be very useful for pilot training. However their training value varies greatly depending on the task to be performed. Things relating to standard procedures and corrective actions for unforeseen events may be more useful, things related to air combat maneuvering (ACM) less so. Certainly ACM can be taught at an academic level in a simulator, learning the mechanics of a particular maneuver, being able to replay things from different vantage points, including your opponents. However the experience of actually feeling the g-forces during ACM is very important. Learning/practicing proper technique for maintaining consciousness, learning your personal limits, etc need actual flight time and the skills developed during this flight time are perishable. G-forces are also another input your brain learns to use. With experience a pilot can estimate how many degrees they have turned based on g-force and time, "that feels like 90 degrees", its just another thing that contributes to situational awareness and may negate the need to check a compass or external reference point. Handy if you have a more pressing thing to do.
For the record, I'm a military aviator, and I've got plenty of experience in both sims and the actual aircraft.
For some platforms, yes, the sims are just fine. Less dynamic platforms (i.e. helicopters, big wing) work just fine with full motion platforms. It will never be "perfect." Many of the imperfections manifest in ways that are inherent in simplified programming, i.e. actually modeling fluid dynamics for how the jet handles with failed systems vs. just hard coding that things "will" or "wont" work at certain airspeeds.
For tactical aircraft, however, there is absolutely no comparison. Yes, basic flight operations (taking off, landing, navigating) can be done relatively decently, but tactical flying (g-force, sun blind spots, etc) cannot be replicated in anything remotely resembling our current simulators.
Not to mention that most tactical simulators dont include motion. A "full motion" sim can't replicate more than 1.0 G in any given direction, much less a sustained 5g pull. The technology simply doesn't exist.
So do simulators have their uses? Absolutely. But there is no substitute for real flight time, and until we get some Star Trek -esque technology at our disposal, there won't be.
Do they mean a 5x increase of time spent in simulators, with the same "real" flight time as now?
At the other end, do they mean a 5-fold decrease in "real" flight time?
Because it could mean anything in between...
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
I suspect it will mean more time in a sim yes, but largely due to the increased flight time.
I.e., i don't see them cutting down on real fly time a huge amount, but the improved sim fidelity will enable more training on tactics, we with the same budget.
For a combat pilot, combat tactics and avionics training are just as important as actual aircraft handling, and those things can be taught in the simulator pretty well.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
A lot of sim time may not make it difficult to recruit pilots....it WILL make it difficult to keep them alive and able to win in both training and combat missions.
I have over 1,200 hrs in the F-4 Phantom and probably 500+ hours in simulators.
Even if a sim has a 100% accurate visual environment and simulates the aircraft systems perfectly, it can not simulate the physical environment (mostly the G's) of flying a training or combat mission. A real two hour mission in a fighter is roughly equivalent to lifting head, hand and foot weights in a phone booth on a hot, sunny day while doing a life-or-death crossword puzzle (one mistake and someone, probably you, dies) and the phone booth is juggled by a demented fork lift operator.
Think of this...at 6Gs (a normal hard turn...a really hard turn, like you mean it, is more like 7 - 9 Gs) your head + helmet weighs between 50 and 60 pounds. So climb into a small car on a hot day with 4 bowling balls (or that much weight) strapped to your head. Then drive along at 200 MPH down an empty Interstate and, while driving, turn and watch carefully some idiot with a large gun that is chasing you (also presumably in a car doing 200 MPH). An old saying in the fighter business is "lose sight...lose fight". So you MUST keep that idiot in sight while dealing with your 50 + pound head AND driving down the road dodging the idiot AND oh yes, get someone on a cell phone to talk to. Make sure you talk "hands free" of course. ;-)
Sims are GREAT for teaching aircraft systems, procedures and how to deal with emergencies. However, the harsh physical environment of flying a fighter mission is something that is not going to be simulated any time soon and you have to experience it, and often, in order to teach and remind your body and mind how to cope with it.
"Microsoft Goose Simulator 2014"
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Considering the next generation of high-performance aircraft will quite possibly be unmanned, this might not be such a bad idea.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...or Ripley: 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...
From what I've read elsewhere, Canada's current Hornets cost approximately $10K per hour to operate, while their replacement, the F-35, has been estimated to cost over $30K per hour. With the F-35 costing so much more to operate, increased simulator hours for training become the obvious move. The alternative is under trained or unqualified pilots at the controls of $100m+ aircraft.
Most pilots want to be up in the actual sky, not in a simulation. Thus, if simulators are used more, at least rotate often between ground and sky so that the pilot gets the real deal often enough to keep their interest. Don't go for months of training with only simulations.
Table-ized A.I.
We need simulators because: Our yaks are really large
HMCS Chicoutimi.
Nuff said.
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
Sounds like you know WTF you're talking about. Those of us with zero combat hours ought to listen to you.
I've only flown at 60 knots, 1/10th the speed of a combat aircraft, and noone was shooting at me. A sim couldn't prepare me for that, an ultralight. Flying almost straight down at the ground (it seems) from 2000 feet up and keeping your noise pointed at the ground until a few seconds before you hit, without freaking out requires more than pretending on a computer screen. That's in a $2,500 plane that goes 65 mph and the sim can't replicate it. I can't imagine what it's like to be a combat aviator, but I'm pretty damn sure playing an expensive video game isn't proper preparation!
So what you're saying is flying jets is awesome, right?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Simple solution...to prevent jamming... put the simulator... inside the drone!
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
I'm a private pilot with a multi-engine rating. Simulators seem to be a good way to rehearse cockpit procedures, but unless they figure out a way to simulate g-forces, that's about the limit of their usefulness. Simulating a spin recovery procedure is one thing, doing it for real with a two- or three-g load from the spin is another. With that said, I don't think commercial and military pilots are going to have a viable career field for much longer. Military pilots are already being replaced by drone operators, and I think the rate of replacement is going to accelerate if the drone program keeps posting the kind of successes it has enjoyed so far. Unmanned vehicles seem to be the future of military aviation. Commercial pilots will probably last longer, because commercial airlines have to convince a skeptical public that airliners are going to be as safe with a computer at the stick as they are right now with a human. Realistically, commercial pilots have a hand on the stick only during takeoffs and landings, but all modern heavies can land and take off under autopilot, and have been able to for about thirty years. IIRC, a Douglas Skymaster made a transatlantic flight completely on autopilot, including the take-off and landing, even farther back than that (late 1940s? have to google that) so the technology is definitely out there. IMHO, pilots are still in commercial cockpits (and will be there for a while) because the paying public wants them there, not because they need to be there.
Are pilots really necessary anymore in Military aircraft? They must be considered a dying breed, UAVs and UCVs with increasingly autonomous intelligence, swarm behavior etc seem to be a better option. Able to withstand greater G loadings, smaller but with similar payloads. The future is more likely to be large bomber type aircraft carrying swarms of UCVs to the theatre for deployment.
... when you have drones?
Being paid to fly in a really fancy simulation game... Yes, they will find plenty of recruits. :-)
so... you fly for Iranians?
simulator time is still better than nothing, even with shitty simulator(ask russians).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You would not believe how much time is wasted flying around waiting to train. Your training area is rarely near your airfield. You fly a few hours, then wait until other planes take turns doing the mission. You then roll in and perform the training mission, then quickly exit so someone else can. Now, you do need to learn to take off, fly long distances and land, but it is not useful training when you are focused on another mission. With the simulator, you can start in mid air and begin the mission right away. It is not a replacement for actual flying, but you can get up to speed in the simulator prior to flying the mission, and keep sharp when flying isn't practicle.
Yes, I know that looks like more than 100%. As pointed out more eloquently by real military pilots, they need real flight experience. Rather than *replace* the real experience with simulation, use the lowered cost of simulation to increase the *total* time spent in training, and ensure that they can have some training every day to be in peak form, the same way most pro athletes train every day. If that's too much time for people to handle (because I don't really know how much time they spend now), lower the real time only part of the way. I would certainly prefer that there were never a shot fired in anger; at the same time I also want my team optimally prepared for whatever they need to do.
Considering that BOTH US and Canadian governments are poised to buy jets that cost between 100-200M a pop, is it really coming as a surprise that pilots will be training with more sim time VS taking the caddy out for a spin?
Sure there are trainer jets and the like, however there are only so many of these, and they are old and getting older. Our F22 are hellish to maintain or so I hear and require a huge expense in maintiance hours for every hour of actual flight time.
So yeah less more expensive jets equals more flight simulator for pilots.
That said, you can already see that the US is expending more and more in the terms of drones, where I don't believe Canada has yet. I suspect that this will be the next logical platform that Canada will emulate. I can't see Canada ever aquiring an AC, however perhaps a "drone ship" might be something worth doing.
didn't see this mentioned yet... many of the simulators that the company i work for sells are specifically for mission training purposes rather than just flight readiness.
Canada will continue to support training exercises such as Maple Flag: The number of personnel at CFB Cold Lake effectively doubles while the exercise is being conducted, with approximately 5,000 pilots and support crews from Canada and its Allies. In addition think about the evolution of air combat and the advent of the drones. Training pilots via simulator leads to an easier transition to unmanned fighters. One comment about simulators is that they don't allow the pilot to experience the G's involved in the maneuvers. Easy enough to fix by taking the fighter out of the cockpit permanently.