There is little doubt that simulators have redefined the realm of initial and recurrent training in both Military and Commercial aviation. Cost benefits have been a primary consideration. Lowering the risk of training has been the other major benefit. Achieving balance between simulator and real-aircraft training time has been a subject of much debate and research. Leaning too much to either format has impact. On one side, cost impacts could be significant. On the other, the trainee has little feel for what it is like to be performing this tasks in a real aircraft.
There is also truth to the fact that some areas of training are better handled in a sim while others absolutely need an aircraft.
In my opinion, simulators have evolved to a point where they are close to ‘as real as it gets’. Transfer of training has proven to be effective. Aircrafts have become more technically advanced and a lot of training is focused on procedure and automation – an area where sims lend themselves to really well.
Replication of real-world weather, comms, terrain, flight dynamics have become possible. There isn’t a lot of loss in ambient factors in a simulator today.
In fact the term ‘supplement’ almost implies that sims are secondary. That has changed with time. In many areas, simulators end up being primary channels for training while aircraft-based training come in at an equal percentage or less.
Again, the one major risk of doing too much time in a sim is that it may lead to a situation where the trainee has little or no feel for what the real world circumstances will be like. This too, then comes down to how well real world factors are modeled into a simulation ecosystem – aka fidelity.
Category: simulators
Role of Simulators in FAA’s NextGen program
Simulation ecosystems are used in a variety of applications beyond their use in training of pilots. While simulators were initially used to help train pilots, they rapidly evolved into playing important roles in advancing aviation overall. Human factors assessments, aircraft and airport design, flightdeck instrumentation design, operating procedure development, air traffic control training, air traffic flow management evaluations are some examples of where simulators are used outside of the realm of direct pilot training (Lee, 2005).
A specific current day example of the use of simulators outside of pilot training is in FAA’s NextGen Program. Air traffic is expected to increase over the next 15 to 20 years and the “NextGen” Program is a comprehensive overhaul of the US National Airspace System to respond to the upcoming demands. NextGen introduces revolutionary new approaches to capacity problems. It will use newer technologies and automation to shift the way air traffic is managed. NextGen is not one idea, but a series of initiatives aimed at transforming different aspects of the aviation ecosystem (Federal Aviation Administration, 2014). The program has been structured into a set of program areas, typically focused on laying out infrastructure. These areas include Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), Data Communications (DataComm), National Airspace System Voice System (NASVS), Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR), and System Wide Information Management (SWIM). NextGen also has a set of portfolios that deliver new capabilities. The portfolios are Time-based Flow Management, Collaborative Air Traffic Management, Improved Approaches and Low-Visibility Operations, Improved Surface Operations, On-Demand NAS Information, Performance-based Navigation, Improved Multiple Runway Operations, Separation Management, and Environment & Energy (Federal Aviation Administration, 2014).
Clearly, the NextGen program will advance commercial aviation in the US and serve as a role model for other such implementations. It will also require changes that could impact the design of future aircraft, air traffic control processes and devices, airport layouts and maintenance facilities, training content, training processes, job aids and performance support systems. The NextGen program will rely heavily on the use of simulation environments to design and test the necessary changes (Callantine, 2008; Crutchfield, 2011; Doucet, 2013; Hunter, 2009). Many of the proposed changes need to be tested before implementation begins, but it is difficult to conduct human factors tests on an environment that does not yet exist. The use of synthetic environments in these situations bring benefits in terms of cost and risk. There is significant benefit to being able to simulate scenarios and test out human interaction with machines before their use in real-world environments.
One very specific example is the use of NextSim. NextSim is an ATC research simulator that collects performance, workload, and situation awareness data to address human factors/ ergonomics issues that might arise in NextGen (Durso, Stearman, & Robertson, 2015). Another example is where, according to a Rockwell Collins’ release, a Boeing 737 flight simulator in the FAA’s Flight Operations Simulation Laboratory (FOSL) in Oklahoma City, will be used to study the viability for NextGen to safely achieve benefits such as lower landing minima by using Rockwell Collins head-up displays with synthetic and enhanced vision during different phases of flight in low visibility conditions (“FAA chooses Rockwell Collins’ guidance systems”, 2012). At Oshkosh AirVenture 2010, the FAA NextGen Data Communications (DataComm) program demonstrated by using simulators that new Data Comm technology will deliver major savings in time, money, fuel, as well as, environmental effects. The technologies introduced by DataComm included its new air traffic control (ATC) and Boeing 737 cockpit simulators (Gonda & Zillinger, 2010).
Callantine (2008) describes the use of simulation to analyze human-in-the-loop route structure simulation data. Hunter (2009) describes the design and test of the simulators for use in NextGen, and further proposes test protocols for NextGen simulators. Doucett (2013) details out a cross-organization effort to setup a distributed environment comprised of aircraft and ATC simulator that can serve as a collaboration tool for NextGen design and test. Prevot, Homola, and Mercer (2008) study the trajectory based operations, a NextGen component using simulators.
Based on the discussion above, there is little doubt that simulators and synthetic environments have, and continue to play, a critical role in aviation, over and beyond their use for direct pilot training.
References
Callantine, T. (2008). An integrated tool for NextGen concept design, fast-time simulation, and analysis. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies (MST) Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Crutchfield, J. M. (2011). NextGen update. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82(9), 925-925. doi:10.3357/ASEM.3117.2011.
Doucett, S. (2013). Distributed environment experiment for NextGen. doi:10.2514/6.2013-4277.
Durso, F. T., Stearman, E. J., & Robertson, S. (2015). NextSIM: A platform-independent simulator for NextGen HF/E research. Ergonomics in Design, 23(4), 23-27. doi:10.1177/1064804615572624.
FAA chooses Rockwell Collins’ guidance systems with synthetic and enhanced vision to support NextGen efforts. (2012). Entertainment Close-Up.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2014). NextGen Implementation Plan 2014. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/library/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2014.pdf
Gonda, J., & Zillinger, E. (2010). Digital avionics. Aerospace America, 48(11), 44.
Hunter, G. (2009) Testing and validation of NextGen simulators. doi:10.2514/6.2009-6124.
Lee, A. T. (2005). Flight simulation: Virtual environments in aviation. Burlington, VT;Aldershot, England;: Ashgate.
Prevot, T., Homola, J., & Mercer, J. (2008). Initial study of Controller/Automation integration for NextGen separation assurance. () doi:10.2514/6.2008-6330.
The networked simulator
Over the past 6 months i have done so much work on my simulator that it made me think about writing this post on the compelling possibilities that arise from a networked simulator and a network of simulators.
Just over the past two weeks, in helping out our friends at PilotEdge, I was part of a team that generated traffic for testing avionics equipment and the TCAS system for a design team. Before that, i was part of a team that was itself testing a newly designed simulator. back in February of 2018, as part of study worm at Embry Riddle University, there were many discussions around the use of distributed remote ops concepts that could help build safety scenarios in the use of drones. While all or most of these are concepts, it is very apparent that the combinatorial power of a simulation appliance and the network is phenomenal.
The internet of things is here. Pretty much any device can be provisioned with an IP address. As such, it can participate in a network. The simulator was an extraordinarily useful safety and proficiency device. Combining it into a network has brought out a series of new possibilities. Real-time weather generation, traffic scenario generation, communications testing are just a few of those advantages.
The ability for a piece of simulation hardware to talk to learning management systems and learning content management systems is a valuable opportunity. Taking it a step further. if the learning management system was adaptive, this would add a new dimension to pacing learning based on learner assimilation and learner type. Now with the use of ML, the generation of scenarios based on measures of central tendency have become easier. Content packaging using SCORM and/or IMS makes for standard scenario packages. A learning record store provides for persistence in student progress tracking. Progress dashboards and giving the learner a unified experience becomes very possible. There are many other such benefits.
Aggregation has been the sought after path for several years. Simulators have arrived at that point now.
CJ
Transfer of training and Fidelity requirements
The ability to transfer training is what makes simulation environments important. Mirroring reality becomes very important. This theory is associated with general principles of learning psychology stemming back to the early 1900s.
There is a correlation between the objectives of training and need for fidelity.There are different phases of flight and not all are equal in all respects. However, each one demands a different type aspect of fidelity to be modeled accurately. A x-wind trainer training for crab angle or slip on short final will require that the DOFs are well modeled. In cruise flight on autopilot at 30000 feet, DOF modeling is less important. Instrument scans, PPoS and fuel monitoring become extremely important. Hence instrument fidelity takes dominance.
Its well documented in human factors research that complacency and ‘falling behind the curve’ is a common issue in cruise flight. Aural warnings, the FMS and Autopilot will need to be really high fidelity to accurately model nav and fuel burn. Coming back into a terminal area, radio comms, traffic, congestion, weather modeling (mins) take dominance.
Hence in my opinion, fidelity is a function of training objective and in each phase of flight a different aspect of fidelity takes over. I don’t think there is ever a ‘low stress’ phase of flight.
CPJ
#FSX and #Win10 update
I deferred updating my primary PC on my simulator till the very last minute because I was very apprehensive about breaking something that as working really well. Of course, the last week of July came by soon and the deadline for Win 10 upgrade came up. With a ton of trepidation I finally hit the upgrade button!
After the upgrade was complete, I hesitantly turned all of the components of my sim. Surprisingly at first, everything seems to be working as before. That was not the case, though.
here are some of the fixes i had to go through and I am listing them below in case you have the similar issues.
FDS MCP G1 – Driver needed reinstall. Prosim needed to be configured again to use the correct COM port.
NVIDIA Settings – My PC lost all of its #FSX profile related #NVIDIA customizations. If you have a backup of the profile, you may be able to import it back.
FSX.CFG – Win10 registered NVIDIA #GTX card as a new entry in the FSX.CFG file. With that, FSX when started didn’t use the prior resolution, filtering and aliasing settings. I had to reset each of these settings to prior settings.
#UltimateTraffic2 – #UT2 would not start. It would ask for registration. When attempted to register, UT2 would come up with an “Invalid License File” notification. This is related to Windows Defender. Defender quarantines the license key file. Open Windows Defender and restore the Ultimate Traffic key file. Once this is complete, UT2 will run correctly. This short YouTube Video helped me resolve this issue.
With these changes, my simulator seems to be running normally. I did not need any changes to #ProSim737, #Aerosoft scenery or any other hardware drivers (which I have many of!).
Hope this helps.
CPJ
Virtual Reality & the Oculus Rift
Its here… the new standard for Virtual Reality. The #OculusRift is finally ready for use and deliveries have been announced for Q1 2016. Virtual Reality has looked for traction for many years. The Rift will change everything we have known till date about #VR. As a simulator hobbyist who has spent years trying triple monitors, triple channel projection, FOV calculations I can clearly see – no pun intended – the value of the Rift. In the mad pursuit of achieving high resolution immersive 210 degree wrap-around views I had at one point 9 monitors dedicated to such wrap around view generation – and yet, the views would still feel like you were watching a monitor.
The Rift changes all that. Watch one of the videos I found on Youtube, you will see what I am talking about.
CP Jois