Co-Pilots May Sim Instead of Fly To Train 68
CyberLord Seven writes "The Washington Post has up an article on a proposed new standard that would allow co-pilots, and co-pilots only, to gain most of their flight experience through flight simulators rather than through actual flight on smaller planes." From the article: "The move is designed to allow foreign airlines, especially those in Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly train and hire flight crews. The United States isn't expected to adopt the new rules anytime soon, but international pilots trained under the new standards will be allowed to fly into and out of the country. The change is generating some controversy. Safety experts and pilot groups question whether simulators -- which have long been hailed as an important training tool -- are good enough to replace critical early flight experience." It should be pointed out this isn't just Microsoft Flight Simulator they are playing. These are motion-controlled capsules that simulate the realities of an aircraft's movement.
Speaking of middle eastern pilots (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be "Senator Retard (R-FU)"?
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of this technology has been risk reduced on military aircraft programs, and in general it has made things safer by giving pilots more realistic training before they even get into the cockpit of a high energy death machine. If I owned a multi-million dollar super jumbo I know I wouldn't feel too happy whenever a pilot sat at the controls for the first time, but I might be a little bit less concerned if they had already flown several hundred hours in a representative simulation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the first is, i would want a pilot with experience flying. period. i really don't care what he flew, but good, safe aviation involves a mindset that will not be attained sitting safely on the ground. it is easy to stay calm and collected when you are on the ground.
the second is, is it that much cheaper to use a simulator than small craft? i'm not sure what the slowdown is there. unless maybe a single instructo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I rent planes the cost of the instructor's time is dwarfed by the cost of renting the plane. $35 per hour for the instructor, $110 per hour for a Cessna 172R. See also $100 Hamburger [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
As to the original question though,
Re: (Score:2)
You can't feel it on a big Airbus or Boing either (not at least on a distinguishable manner from that on the simulator).
"You can't feel the resistance in the stick to know that you must trim the aircraft"
You can't feel it on a big Airbus or Boing either, unless using force-feedback in exactly the same manner a simulator would do.
"You can't look around out of the windows and scan for traffic"
You can hardly do it on a big Airbus or Boing either.
"Overall, it just is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is quite untrue - a real wake encounter or a highly variable crosswind is completely different in the real thing than a simulator. Most simulators are limited by physics to a small fraction of a gee of acceleration, and because of the nature of how they are affixed to the ground, they simulate the sensation of yaw very badly.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The good simulators cost far more than a small craft, to the point where I believe many airlines rent sim time from larger airlines because they can't afford to buy their own sims.
The sims are more expensive, but the t
Re: (Score:2)
But the operation costs are much much lower and you can "take out" much much more "flying" hours from a given simulator than from a real plane (a simulator can "fly" almost 24x7 while a Cessna is far from it).
Of course your two points are *big* advantages too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It may appear to be that way on the surface, but there's a lot more in common between a C-172 and an A380 than there is between a big rig and a bicycle, as you put it. The four fundamental forces of flight don't change when you fly a different type of airplane. Nor does the relationship between pitch, power, airspeed, and vertical speed; the relationship between stall speed, loading, and bank; the proper procedures for communicating with ATC;
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The pressure involved in doing it "for real" when you and a few passengers (possibly family members) are in the air can't be duplicated in a sim. Sim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
* Simulate in-air emergencies, and practice the measures required to get through them safely (engine out, lost wheels, wheels jammed, that sort of thing) so that if the pilot ever needs to address the emergency, he/she has the knowledge, and the instincts, to tackle it correctly
* Simulate events such as loss of power on take off / aborted take off, without the risk to a real pla
Serious Training (Score:3, Funny)
The advanced trainee also plays X-Wing Vs. TIE Fighter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
back in 1989 you got credit for hours logged on simulators for private pilot licenses...
who knows how long before that you were REQUIRED to learn in Sims for commercial pilots..
Re: (Score:2)
Simple is right. It is OK for learning how things look and what to do but it isn't like flying. I know because I am learning to fly and the first time I tried to do a landing in MSFS I put the thing down perfectly. I'm not bad but nowhere near that good. At home I use Xplane which I find more realistic because it is a heck of a lot harder to do a good landing and it flies in a way which is pretty realistic. I al
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that the pilots like to play Flight Sim and XvTie while flying internationally. Or was that just a dream I had?
well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The really great thing about simulators is that you can easily practice what to do when things go really wrong, without risking an actual aircraft and endangering people.
It might be fine (Score:1)
Though any trainee that breaks his Wiimote strap dur
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, the conductors really have a tough job, so obviously they need simulations before they can be let loose to check real passengers' tickets. They must be using some advanced AI techniques to get "aggravated customer" sim just right.
Re: (Score:1)
Plenty of sim training is already allowed (Score:3, Informative)
As long as a pilot has jet experience, their type rating training for other jets will be entirely done in simulators. And most of us agree that the real thing is easier to fly than a simulator.
That being said, a large amount of experience in real world flying is still invaluable. It is true that on most airline flights the autopilot handles more than 90% of the flying, but pilots still need the experience learning weather and the atmosphere. Here in the US a pilot is required to have 1,500 hours of flight time before becoming eligible for their air transport pilot certificate, and I think that number is appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, modern autopilots can pretty much take-off and land the plane in good weather. Pilots are kept in the loop because nobody wants a computer glitch to kill several hundred people.
in WoW terms. (Score:1, Funny)
1500 hours doing anything is nothing to sneeze at. To put that into perspective for games.slashdot readers, it's the same as typing
Bad idea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Although simulators have become very realistic in recent years, they still don't accurately model how an aircraft will behave in various situations. Simulators represent an idealistic model of a particular airframe, engine, and environment. In the real world, every aircraft behaves slightly differently, e
Re: (Score:1)
The fidelity of simulators nowadays are excellent, especially t
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree.
While you might think a 747 is similar enough to a CRJ that you could just go from one to the other, they're completely different aircraft with completely different systems, methodology, and handling characteristics.
I've yet to meet a pilot who felt the simulator handled anything like t
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree.
That wasn't an opinion. It's official FAA policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is EXACTLY what simulators are the worst at doing. Proper cockpit management is impossible to get in a simulator, because something is always going wrong, because that's what you'll be tested on, and that's what you come to expect in a simulator. You go through engine failure
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really mind it would be better a rooky co-pilot with only few hours of CAVOK flying in the real thing and no simulator?
It would be a tough situation anyway, but I know for sure that under these circumnstances I'd prefer the simulator-trained guy 100 times out of 100.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd have a really tough time going around in a 747 with just one engine. 3 yes. Perhaps even 2 (if you hadn't extended the flaps all the way). But 1? No chance.
At any rate, there's nothing wrong with training in the sims. It's not an exact replica of the real thing, but you can go through situations that you wouldn't do
It's good for most things, but NOT landings. (Score:2)
1) Landings in a simulator are not really like real landings. They're close, but not exact. (This is because simulators are limited in the amount of force they can apply).
2) Your sensation of Aircraft motion in certain flight
Re: (Score:2)
how many drops is this for you lieutenant? (Score:5, Funny)
Gorman: Thirty eight... simulated.
Vasquez: How many *combat* drops?
Gorman: Uh, two. Including this one.
Drake: Shit.
Hudson: Oh, man...
Better than real (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Better emergency training. The simulator operator can throw all sorts of things at you that you would never risk in a real airplane like, say, critical engine flameout with full load, gusty crosswinds and high density-altitude. And even if you were willing to take such risks on a real plane, you would have to wait for the right circumstances and would still spend most of your time flying to get ready for the next exercise. In a sim, a push of the button and you're back at the end of the runway waiting for the next disaster to be hurled at you by the torturer, er, instructor.
2. Emphasis on critical phases of flight. You can repeatedly train for tough instrument approaches, difficult holding patterns, etc. without wasting time boring holes in the sky.
3. Fly anywhere. Flying international? How about training for the hellish approach to the Hong Kong airport (well, the old one anyway, should be better now) in the sim?
I remember reading a story about a 747 crew grumbling about the treatment they received in the sim when the instructor threw a series of near-impossible scenarios at them. Shortly thereafter they had something similar to the above happen. Full load, hot day, hill off the departure end of the runway and the gusty crosswinds flamed an engine at rotation. Instantly training kicked in and the engineer threw the dump switches, pilot configured for the situation. They disappeared over the hill and the tower alerted rescue but then they reappeared as they came back for the emergency landing. They missed crashing on the hill by a few feet.
While I think that training in a real aircraft should still be in the curriculum, I would personally step on a plane piloted by a crew with 1500 hours of rigorous sim time before I would get on one piloted by a crew who got the required hours teaching kids in a 152 and then took a type-rating course. I'm not suggesting that the latter are not competant - but the former will be better trained for airline operations.
I think not. (Score:2)
Background: I've actually held a job where some training was done in simulators and some was OJT - and simulators, while valuable, simply aren't as good as experience in the real thing.
Didn't Lufthansa Starlines do this before (Score:2)
Ab initio pilot training (Score:2)
Commercial pilot training is changing drastically. Traditionally, pilots had to have considerable flying experience before moving into the commercial world. Most airline pilots used to be ex-military, and airlines wouldn't even consider training anyone with less than a thousand hours of flight time.
Now there's "ab initio training" [aopa.org] - no previous flight experience required. This is still rare in the United States, which has a big pool of private and military pilots, but outside the US, it's becoming mor
Re: (Score:2)
I've flown both with the "minimal instruments" you mention and glass cockpits, and at least in my opinion the glass cockpits are a lot more minimal. Everything is in one place, all the information
Its been going on for years... (Score:2)
Since the 1980's and the adevent of decent CGI Graphics (from companies like Evans & Sutherland) and very sophisticated 6 axis motion systems, bodies like the CAA and FAA have regarded hours in the Simulator as Flying Hours.
Sometimes, I refer to proper flight sims as the ultimate games console.
However there is no way that things like Microsoft Flight Simulator can reproduce the experiences of a real moving full size cockpit when you have a sudden decompression.
IMHO, anything less would not get approved.
False sense of security (Score:3, Interesting)
And then you go to land in a real plane, having spent many hours in flightsims, and boy does it show. My instructor said I flew like a professional pilot with 500 hours of time until that last thirty seconds on final, when I flew like I'd just solo'ed. (Well, I *had*, basically.)
The point being: if you use a training aid it could mask real-world inadequacy, and a falsely confident pilot rarely lives to figure out what went hideously awry.
With all that said, if it's the copilot learning this way and the pilot's the PIC on final, or has quick access to the controls, it's probably a great idea, and it's sure way cheaper and way less risk on students (at any level) and their instructors.
Top Ten Reasons For Co-Pilots to Sim Train (Score:3, Funny)
2. Avoids those messy in-air collisions
3. Who needs to land anyway, right FAA?
4. Easier to cuss out the trainer
5. HaXX0RZ can upgrade your Piper Cub for Gladiatorial Combat
6. Saves on jet fuel that funds terrorism
7. Prepares you for real-world situations like having Hot Coffee running on your Flight Simulator
8. No distractions from Flight Attendants (see the BBC show
9. The food is better
10. Electrons don't scream when they crash and burn.
Re: (Score:2)
When I die, I want to go like my father did. Peacefully, sleeping. Not screaming and panicing like all of the passengers he was flying to Duluth....
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not MSFS... (Score:2)
They're playing X-Plane! Seriously [x-plane.com] - you do need full-motion sim hardware, but the software is $50 OTS.
Disclaimer, yes, I do own a copy.
Cynically Speaking (Score:2)
I have very good friends who are airline pilots and they lament the move from stick and rudder to full autopilot. Airbus' are the worst offenders of this, but Boeing is catching up. And Co-Pilot is a dated term, BTW. Its First Officer now and, if the crew is using good Cockpit Resource Management, then the First Officer does a lot more than sit and twiddle their thumbs, like it was 30-40 years ago.
My life is now complete! (Score:2)
Thank you, Zonk!
Ummm. Is there any money to be had?
Nothing New... (Score:1)
Virtual Mile High Club (Score:2)
A friend of mine (who will remain anonymous) works with the flight simulators at NASA Ames, the ones on the big hydraulic arms [nasa.gov], which are FAA certified for pilots to qualify as 747 flying time.
I asked him if they were also certified to qualify for the Mile High Club (if the simulator's rock'n, don't come a knock'n). He said of course they were, but it was a good idea to turn off all the cameras, because otherwise everything you do in them [nasa.gov] is recorded [nasa.gov].
They've got all kinds of programs for simulating a