<<...I have long thought that by using the
Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process we could break required
knowledge and skills down into their component behaviors and then
reintegrate them using the Full Flight Simulator (FFS). One of these
presentations suggested that the FFS was too valuable as a technically
accurate representation of the aircraft to "waste" it as a task
integration environment. They went on to describe how a low cost device
was successfully used as an integration tool.
LOFT is often viewed as an opportunity to integrate technical,
procedural, and team knowledge and skills. I would be interested in the
group's thoughts on the role simulation plays in integrating what we
teach our crews.>>
I think two forces are at work here. First, is the search for more
corporate profit margin. Simulator time is expensive and produces very
little revenue. Thus, there is a market pressure to reduce this expense.
Second, and far more important, is the effect of improved software and
microprocessor capability. In my `other job' as a Reserve Officer, I work
at an Air Force Lab developing military flight simulators. We are
presently developing a C-130 H3 simulator that fulfills all crew training
roles. The twist is that it is non-motion. Instead, the money is devoted
to creating a very accurate, realistic, and bright visual display.
Additionally, it can be data-linked to related simulators around the
country for combined force training. The operational crews that have
test-flown it love it. This device costs about one tenth of a typical
full-motion platform FFS. Thus, it is a `low cost' device. Full-motion
advocates would try to categorize it as a Part Task Trainer. So, low cost
does not necessarily equal low capability.
On a related issue, my airline has just completed the incorporation
of a `glass cockpit' B-737 700 model into a traditional `round dial'
cockpit operation. The centerpiece of this transition is a
computer-assisted training program. Every pilot received a CD Rom disk to
pop into his/her own machine and review at his/her leisure. The program
includes a full system breakdown and many task sequence reviews - a nice
piece of work.
This all being said, I think the comment at your conference that a
FFS is too valuable to waste on task integration was probably forwarded by
a vendor trying to sell his/her low cost device :-)
I feel there is definitely a role for part task simulator/trainers.
Full-mission and LOFT training should still be performed in as realistic a
flight simulator as possible.
Steve Swauger