Re: Simulators
Reid Fairburn (cr_king_at_cr_king.seanet.com)
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
At 08:08 PM 10/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Dear Friends,
>
> I'm a Training Development Manager for E-3 Mission Crew members. Over the
>past few years, we've been training under the same philosophy that a simulator
>can never give you the same performance as an actual flight. I'm a huge
>proponet of sim being our most valuable tool in training crew members to do
>their jobs at a huge cost saving of flying on the jet. My dilema is that most
>people outside the pilot world disagree that sim can take the place of flying
>training. I know that most airlines are very heavy on sim training, and even
>the Air Force has gone that way with the C-17 program. My question is does
>anyone know of any documentation or studies that have been done to prove that
>performance in the sim is comparative to that in the aircraft.
>
>
=========
Just an opinion here:
In my military career the sims we used for fighter training were essentially
dog-crap! The sims we use for airlliners are really quite good with a high
transfer rate to the real airplane. While that is good, the real flying
environment is still hard to duplicate and the real airplane is still easier
to fly. However, training is superior in the simulator due to all the stuff
you can do and simulate when you need to. CRM comes in to play here with
all the emergencies you can simulate and in practicing normal procedures as
well. The state of the art simulators with visuals that are almost as good
as looking out the real window, are excellent training devices with transfer
rates in the 90+ percentage I would guess.
Reid Fairburn
Creative Kingdom, Inc.
cr_king_at_cr_king.seanet.com
206-946-9455/4815