Went to the Sim Last Week...

[Ted]

For a few years I've wanted to go to sim training. Partially because I'd never done it before, but also to get the opportunity to do some of the sorts of maneuvers that would be unsafe in the airplane and see what there was that I could learn from it. When I was flying professionally my boss avoided sending me because it cost time and money, and "You don't need it." Translation: "I don't want to pay for it."

My flying's been down a good bit the past year, and I wasn't feeling as sharp as I did previously. Then a good friend of mine (the 310's previous owner, currently flying a T310R) and I were talking and we both said that we wanted to go since it had been a few years for him and I'd never gone. Perfect, now I have a sim partner and it's an excuse to spend a few days with a good friend.

We went down to SimCom DFW on Wednesday in the T310R (225 KTAS @ FL200) and were in "the box" Thursday/Friday, using the full motion 421 sim. We did a number of different training exercises. Primarily a dozen or two instrument approaches, a bunch of "V1 cuts", and of course lots of other bad or challenging failures at inopportune times. Lots of the exercises had to do with ADM as well.

The sim doesn't fly like the plane. Really it flies like crap. If Cessna built a plane that flew that way, nobody would buy it. That said, after spending 6 hours flying the thing over two days, I did get to the point where I made peace with it overall. However the sim would regularly have various control issues without any inputs from the instructor in the back, and it has about a quarter second lag that is difficult to get used to. For something that was built in the 70s, it's actually pretty impressive.

I think the instructor makes or breaks the experience. Our instructor was alright. He wasn't great, and I don't get the feeling was the sort of pilot who understood how the two of us flew (we have very similar flying styles and personal minimums, which makes us good sim partners). He didn't make an effort to challenge us as much as we'd like overall, and most of the good failures happened when my partner or I would lean back and whisper to him "Fail... [something specific]". We heard several times "You were supposed to crash there" when he set a trap up and we got out of it. That said, his traps were pretty easy to see through, so it was easy to just account for it.

If I evaluate the experience based on what I was trying to get out of it, I'd say it was a success and time/money well spent. I'm definitely back to feeling as sharp as I was before we moved out to Ohio. It was neat to get the simulator experience, and to get to do some of the sorts of failures I don't want to do in the plane. In many of the larger twins, yearly recurrent training is required. I'm going to have to think about whether I want to do that or do something else, we'll see.

For anyone who's been thinking about doing it for the experience, I would recommend going for it. I'd also recommend going for a full motion if possible, as I do think that it makes the experience more worthwhile.

 

[jordane93]

ive had the privilege of flying a northwest (now delta simulator) in Minneapolis. my dad was a check airman for the dc 9 and i would go out there and we would get to fly the sims. i want to be an airline pilot so it was definitely a cool experience for me. this pic was taken a few years ago. its like a 10 million dollar toy

 

[Lance F]

It is a shame that sim training is so expensive because it's such a great experience. It's always night, it's always at minimums or worse and it's rare to have two fully functioning engines.
Anybody who can get the chance to do some full motion sim training - grab it.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Cool stuff, Ted. I have found that the quality of the training is very much program specific (some programs are better than others) and even more so, instructor specific. Once I have a GREAT instructor I make sure I specifically have him/her in the sim during future training events.

Most of the older sims fly like crap. Good procedures, CRM, and ADM training though.

 

[Arbiter419]

Ted - As someone who has only flown some of the higher end non motion FRASCA sims, how "real" does the motion feel?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Ted - As someone who has only flown some of the higher end non motion FRASCA sims, how "real" does the motion feel?

Depends.

I haven't flown any of the Simcom older sims. I flew some of the old generation Level B sims long ago and I've flown the latest CAE Level D sims.

The new sims are impressive in their range of axis and motion. Plus the newer generation with the daytime visuals are very nice.

 

[wabower]

No motion on the old 400 sim. Most pilots who are new to sim training think that the motion will be a big deal, and maybe so for the first couple of sessions.

Then they become absorbed in all of the sounds, visual cues and other stuff they must do and totally forget about it. As a sim IP I have forgotten about the motion button and a crew has flown an entire session without it. At the end of the session I had to act like I was turning it off to preserve the scam.

Depends.

I haven't flown any of the Simcom older sims. I flew some of the old generation Level B sims long ago and I've flown the latest CAE Level D sims.

The new sims are impressive in their range of axis and motion. Plus the newer generation with the daytime visuals are very nice.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No motion on the old 400 sim. Most pilots who are new to sim training think that the motion will be a big deal, and maybe so for the first couple of sessions.

Then they become absorbed in all of the sounds, visual cues and other stuff they must do and totally forget about it. As a sim IP I have forgotten about the motion button and a crew has flown an entire session without it. At the end of the session I had to act like I was turning it off to preserve the scam.

Yea, I have experienced that also.

The newer CAE sims are impressive in motion doing a windshear demo or a bounced landing or strong crosswind.

 

[Dead Stick]

I'll be heading to DFW to play in the box in a couple of weeks. After 30 something years I still look forward to it, but I'm always glad when they're finished having their way with me.

 

[Dead Stick]

Depends.

I haven't flown any of the Simcom older sims. I flew some of the old generation Level B sims long ago and I've flown the latest CAE Level D sims.

The new sims are impressive in their range of axis and motion. Plus the newer generation with the daytime visuals are very nice.

The motion sensations are usually quite faithful to the airplane - especially after you get into it "mentally". However, every once in a while you'll get in a sim where the timing is slightly off (milliseconds) and when you do, it can be quite disconcerting for those guys that have a lot of experience in the airplane.

Early on, I had one of my initial sim instructors in the 727 tell me that the sim was pretty good, but the airplane was more realistic. That was about right back then and it's about right today.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The motion sensations are usually quite faithful to the airplane - especially after you get into it "mentally". However, every once in a while you'll get in a sim where the timing is slightly off (milliseconds) and when you do, it can be quite disconcerting for those guys that have a lot of experience in the airplane.

Early on, I had one of my initial sim instructors in the 727 tell me that the sim was pretty good, but the airplane was more realistic. That was about right back then and it's about right today.

I would hope so!

 

[Everskyward]

I think the airplane is easier to fly, especially easier to land.

To me, sims all seem to be more sensitive in pitch than the airplane. Also sims can't duplicate a sustained g-load like in a steep turn.

 

[GCA319]

I think the airplane is easier to fly, especially easier to land.

To me, sims all seem to be more sensitive in pitch than the airplane. Also sims can't duplicate a sustained g-load like in a steep turn.

Definately. I don't think I've evr had a sim landing I would consider "good"

 

[Ted]

Ted - As someone who has only flown some of the higher end non motion FRASCA sims, how "real" does the motion feel?

It definitely is a great novelty. For me, it did make the experience more realistic, and I think more importantly helped me to jump into it more seriously.

It is a shame that sim training is so expensive because it's such a great experience. It's always night, it's always at minimums or worse and it's rare to have two fully functioning engines.
Anybody who can get the chance to do some full motion sim training - grab it.

That part is true. It was a bit over $2k for the privilege, but that included a free t-shirt (I talked them into a second one for Laurie) and a bag as well. Plus add in travel expenses - the flight down, hotel, etc.

I also see why it's expensive. These sims are high maintenance, and they have a full time crew to keep them running on top of the instructors. Plus they aren't running all the time (actually I was surprised how dead SimCom seemed).

I'll be heading to DFW to play in the box in a couple of weeks. After 30 something years I still look forward to it, but I'm always glad when they're finished having their way with me.

After 2 days, I was done more than anything because I felt the Instructor ran out of ideas for how to try to make me crash. A better IP I think could have kept the fun going, but it's also pretty exhausting compared to a normal flight.

 

[flyingmoose]

Cool Ted.... Now back to work!!

 

[wabower]

it's safe to assume the FAA will never approve training devices that are easier than the airplane. Some of the "handling quality" issues that are mandated when new sims are brought on-line can be puzzling. I don't remember ever hearing a tire chirp on landing a G-V, nor did any of the other experienced IP's who were involved in the initial set-up at SFI.

The FAA, however, insisted that such noise be added, primarily because other sims have it. We always thought they wanted it to wake them up at the end of sim session.

I think the airplane is easier to fly, especially easier to land.

To me, sims all seem to be more sensitive in pitch than the airplane. Also sims can't duplicate a sustained g-load like in a steep turn.

 

[Ted]

The interesting thing was I got greases down after a bit, but on a 7000x200 runway I'd use all 7000 ft of width.

 

[simtech]

I used to work on the full motion t-37 sim. It seemed pretty real and would buck you around a lot. Now I work on the T-6 sim, which is not full motion, none of UPT sims are full motion for the AF. It seems more real than full motion. We continually have people needing to stop the sim and walking sideways down the hall. Pretty funny actually! However I agree the sims fly nothing like a real plane, but if you can fly the sim you can definitely fly the real plane. It's fun sitting in the back blasting problem after problem, makes for a fun night with visitors!

 

[LDJones]

ive had the privilege of flying a northwest (now delta simulator) in Minneapolis. my dad was a check airman for the dc 9 and i would go out there and we would get to fly the sims. i want to be an airline pilot so it was definitely a cool experience for me. this pic was taken a few years ago. its like a 10 million dollar toy

That's the DC-9 sim. I've flown that a few times...quite an eye-opener compared to the A320, 747 and 757 sims. They are pretty amazing toys.

 

[LDJones]

I also see why it's expensive. These sims are high maintenance, and they have a full time crew to keep them running on top of the instructors. Plus they aren't running all the time (actually I was surprised how dead SimCom seemed.

A good friend maintains sims for Delta (formerly with NWA). He's an electronics wizard. He often invited me to fly their sims when he had night or weekend maintenance to do on them....which was all the time.

A couple of years ago, the turn coordinator went out on the 747 sim...one of the early steam gauge variants. The replacement unit was $6K and management was aghast. Roger disassembled the unit, did a little re-engineering with a $6 servo from the hobby shop and the thing worked like new.

 

[Ted]

A good friend maintains sims for Delta (formerly with NWA). He's an electronics wizard. He often invited me to fly their sims when he had night or weekend maintenance to do on them....which was all the time.

A couple of years ago, the turn coordinator went out on the 747 sim...one of the early steam gauge variants. The replacement unit was $6K and management was aghast. Roger disassembled the unit, did a little re-engineering with a $6 servo from the hobby shop and the thing worked like new.

At SimCom they had several rooms dedicated to maintenance personnel, and it seemed like just as many mechanics as instructors.

I don't know enough about the sims on the 421 level, but the Level D sims need to have the actual equipment in the plane, which is why they're so expensive to build and run (among other reasons). In the 421 there were some sounds I was used to from the panel and some sounds I wasn't. Who knows whether that was because I didn't have a headset in the sim.

 

[wabower]

The big cost for sims is gathering actual flight data from an airplane for the engineers to convert into sim performance programs. Each sim is an exact replica of the plane from which it was modeled, as shown by the data plate on each unit. That's the reason the G-V sim at SFI has a slightly different pedestal config than most.

At SimCom they had several rooms dedicated to maintenance personnel, and it seemed like just as many mechanics as instructors.

I don't know enough about the sims on the 421 level, but the Level D sims need to have the actual equipment in the plane, which is why they're so expensive to build and run (among other reasons). In the 421 there were some sounds I was used to from the panel and some sounds I wasn't. Who knows whether that was because I didn't have a headset in the sim.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

The big cost for sims is gathering actual flight data from an airplane for the engineers to convert into sim performance programs. Each sim is an exact replica of the plane from which it was modeled, as shown by the data plate on each unit. That's the reason the G-V sim at SFI has a slightly different pedestal config than most.

+1

The flight data is REALLY expensive. The newer Level D sims certified under the new part 60 requirements are pretty darn realistic.