Article citation information:
Nowakowski, H., Makarewicz, J. Flight simulation devices in pilot air training. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2018, 98, 111-118. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2018.98.11.
Henryk NOWAKOWSKI[1],
Jarosław MAKAREWICZ[2]
FLIGHT
SIMULATION DEVICES IN PILOT AIR TRAINING
Summary. This article deals with issues related to the use of
flight simulation devices in pilot training. It also discusses the regulations
included in the legislation defining the scope of simulator use in flight
training processes for particular aviation ratings. In addition, the methods
for using flight simulation devices in pilot training and practical training
processes are presented, taking into consideration civil and military aviation
applications.
Keywords: flight
simulation devices, flight simulator, instrument training device, training
device
1. INTRODUCTION
Training devices used in air training can perform many
functions. Depending on their ability to simulate flight conditions, they may
be used in screening candidates and, most of all, during various stages of
pilot instruction and training. The type of training device used will be
dependent on the type of flight elements to be trained on. It will also be
dependent on aviation regulations that define the rules for the use of aircraft
simulators in the process of practical aviation training, i.e., specify which
part of the training performed on the aircraft may actually be carried out
using a training device. Moreover, aviation regulations specify technical
requirements that aviation simulators must meet in order to meet the eligible
criteria for their use in the implementation of training.
It is also worth noting that the conditions affecting
the use of training devices in aviation training and instruction differ
significantly, depending on the aviation type. As such, it is sufficient to
compare the rules and the level of their application in commercial aviation,
general aviation and military aviation.
2. TRAINING DEVICES USED
IN AVIATION
2.1. Simulator types
The classification of flight simulators and the
requirements for training devices used for the instruction, training and
verification of the correctness of flight crew operations have been set and
defined in relevant regulations issued by international aviation authorities.
In Poland, the document setting out these principles, as approved by the
President of the Civil Aviation Authority, is JAR-FSTD A[3],
which covers the provisions for introducing European aviation safety
requirements that are concerned with aircraft flight simulation training
devices.
Depending on their capabilities for simulating flight
conditions, training devices have been divided into categories. Based on the
JAR-FSTD A document, the categorization can be presented as follows. The most
technologically advanced type of flight simulator falls into the full flight simulator (FFS) category. A simulator belonging to this category must be equipped with a
complete cockpit of a given aircraft type, model or series, and have an
appropriate computer system to simulate, with optimal realism, aircraft
manoeuvres on the ground and during the flight. Furthermore, such a simulator
is required to visualize the manoeuvres performed by the aircraft, as well as
to provide the sensation of flight dynamics by imitating the motion sensations
through the use of a system of actuators moving the simulator cockpit.
Another category of flight
simulators are flight training devices (FTDs).
Simulators of this type must have a complete, full-size and functional replica
of instruments, equipment and control panels of a given aircraft type, managed
by a suitable computer system necessary for optimal rendering of the manoeuvres
of the aircraft on the ground and in flight. These devices are not equipped
with visualization and motion imitation systems.
The next category of flight
simulators covers flight and navigation
procedures trainers (FNPTs). For
these types of simulator, the cockpit is connected with a suitable computer
system necessary to represent a particular type, or group of types, of aircraft
during in-flight operations. Devices of this type are used, e.g., in training
for IFR flights and radionavigation.
The simplest types of flight simulators that enable
training for at least the flight procedures of IFR flights are basic instrument training devices (BITDs).
These devices only imitate the instruments of an aircraft.
2.2. Conditions for utilizing training devices in
aviation
One of the most
important reasons for using training devices in aviation is the necessity to
limit the possibility of dangerous events during the instruction and training
of flight crews. At different stages of flight training, a trainee pilot can
make more or less serious mistakes in aircraft handling. Some elements of
flight training may carry a high risk of an air accident. To avoid this, part
of the practical training should be conducted using flight simulators. A good
example of this may be multi-engine (ME) aircraft handling training in
simulated single-engine flights and in-flight engine restarts. Due to the risk
associated with this drill, the regulations recommend the engine to be turned
off and on at a safe altitude, but also give the opportunity to perform this
exercise on the flight simulation training device.
When training qualified pilots, safety considerations
also determine the necessity of using flight simulators. It is difficult to
imagine the safe performance of crew training in some emergency situations in a
real flight, e.g., belly landing, on-board fire or dangerous weather phenomena
threatening flight safety.
An important reason for using training devices is also
the economic factor. The utilization of training devices significantly reduces
the costs of pilot training. This is most evident in the case of comparing air
training costs for the instrument rating (IR)[4].
In accordance with the provisions contained in the Part-Flight Crew Licensing
(Part-FCL)[5],
70% of this training may be done using the flight simulation training device.
As a result, the training costs to obtain the IR are reduced by half, compared
to the costs of this training if performed entirely on the aircraft.
There are numerous benefits of using flight simulation
devices[6],
but one of them should be particularly emphasized: i.e., the instructor is able
to break the student’s flight at any time and discuss errors just after they
have been committed. The trainee pilot has time to analyse and resume a given
flight sequence, without having to repeat the whole flight, trying not to
commit the error again. In turn, the instructor has more time to practise the
flight elements that cause the trainee the most difficulties, without repeating
those that the trainee handles well. This reflects an effective use of time
allocated for aviation training.
3. UTILIZATION OF TRAINING EQUIPMENT IN
FLIGHT TRAINING
3.1. Civil aviation
When analysing the use of training devices in civil
aviation, it should be noted that, at the stage of obtaining licences and
aviation ratings, pilots follow a similar path. If there are some differences,
they result from the fact that some training centres do not possess certified
flight trainers.
Regulations specify the possibilities of using
training devices in air training. In the integrated Airline Transport Pilot
Licence (ATPL) airplane training, 40 h out of a 150 h minimum provided for in
the training syllabus may involve the use of an FFSFNPT II or FFS simulator.
This constitutes approximately 26% of the total flying time. The situation is
similar in integrated commercial pilot licence
(CPL)/IR aircraft training.
Training devices in helicopter training are used at a
similar level. In the integrated ATPL helicopter (ATPL(H))/IR training, 65 out
of 195 h, as provided for in the training syllabus, may involve the use of an
FFS (approximately 33% of the total flying time), or 60 h using an FTD 2/3
(approximately 30% of the total flying time), or 55 h using an FNPT II/III
(approximately 28% of the total flying time) (Figure 1). In the integrated
CPL(H)/IR training, 50 h out of 180, as provided for in the training syllabus,
may involve the use of an FFS (approximately 28% of the total flying time), or
45 h using an FTD 2/3 (approximately 25% of the total flying time), or 40 h
using an FNPT II/III (approximately 22% of the total flying time) (Figure 2).
Further use of flight simulation
equipment in pilot training and practical training will then vary, depending on
where a pilot will be performing flights. If a pilot ends up in so-called
general aviation, training devices may be used in training to obtain additional
ratings, but not for any other form of systematic training. The situation is
different if a pilot starts working, for example, with an aviation organization
dealing with air transport. A pilot coming to an airline, after completing an
academic training course for a new aircraft type commences practical training
on a flight simulator. Before entering the real aircraft cockpit, the pilot
then has to master the operation of on-board equipment, procedures for start-up,
taxi, take-off, en route, and landing, as well as emergency procedures using a
simulator. Only upon the successful completion of an examination session on a
simulator will s/he be allowed to commence practical air training.
That is not the end of his/her
“adventure” with flight simulators. Airline pilots have to participate in
simulator training on a regular basis. As part of the session, they rehearse
the crew’s conduct in emergency situations. Very frequently, scenarios of
individual training sessions are based on emergency situations that have
actually occurred on a given aircraft type, with simulator training used to
teach crews how to act properly and efficiently.
|
Integrated ATPL(H)/IR training |
FSTD credits |
||||
|
|
Flight with an instructor |
Solo flight |
Student pilot-in-command (SPIC) |
Total |
FFS; FTD; FNPT |
|
Visual, including ME
T/R training |
75 instruction hours |
15 instruction hours |
40 instruction hours |
130 instruction hours |
30 h
C/D level or 25 h FTD 2/3 or 20 h FNPT II/III |
|
Basic IFR |
10 instruction hours |
- |
- |
10 instruction hours |
20 h FFS or 25
h FTD 2/3 or FNPT II/III or 10 h
at least FNPT I |
|
IR training |
40 instruction hours |
- |
- |
40 instruction hours |
|
|
MCC |
15 instruction hours |
- |
- |
15 instruction hours |
15 hours FFS or FTD 2/3 (MCC) or FNPT
II/III (MCC) |
|
Total |
140 instruction hours |
55 instruction hours |
195 instruction hours |
|
|
Fig. 1. Integrated ATPL(H)/IR training –
successful completion of flight simulation training device training for
helicopter flights with an instructor
Source: GM1 to Annex 3; Annex 6; FCL.735.H
|
Integrated CPL(H)/IR training |
FSTD credits |
||||
|
|
Flight with an instructor |
Solo flight |
SPIC |
Total |
FFS; FTD; FNPT |
|
Visual, including ME T/R training |
75 instruction hours |
15 instruction hours |
40 instruction hours |
130 instruction hours |
30 h
C/D level or 25 h FTD 2/3 or 20 h FNPT II/III |
|
Basic IFR |
10 instruction hours |
- |
- |
10 instruction hours |
20 h FFS or 25 h FTD 2/3 or FNPT II/III or 10
h at least FNPT I |
|
IR training |
40 instruction hours |
- |
- |
40 instruction hours |
|
|
Total |
125 instruction hours |
55 instruction hours |
180 instruction hours |
50 h FFS level C/D or 45 h FTD 2/3 or 40 h
FNPT II/III or 10 h at least FNPT
I |
|
Fig. 2. Integrated CPL(H)/IR training – successful
completion of flight simulation training device training for helicopter flights
with an instructor
Source: GM1 to Annex 3; Annex 6;
FCL.735.H
3.2. Military aviation
Flight training devices play a vital
role in the training of air force pilots. At the beginning, in order to become
a military pilot student at the Polish Air Force Academy (PAFA) in Dęblin, a
candidate for a military pilot must pass, among other tests, a test on the
“Selekcjoner” (Screener) training device, checking his/her predisposition to
the profession of a pilot. If s/he passes all the tests and examinations
successfully and is admitted to school, s/he will also train on flight
simulators during the five years of study. Simulator training includes basic
training, i.e., learning and training in operating on-board equipment, learning
to start up the power plant, taxi, take-off, traffic patterns, flights to the
training zone and basic flight manoeuvres, landing on ice, radiotelephony
communication, and responses to emergency situations. In the subsequent phases,
the trainee participates in advanced training, in which s/he also carries out
flights to the training zone and intermediate flight manoeuvres. During the
training at the academy, s/he will perform about 100 h of flying time on flight
simulation devices.
Some differences between the
simulation training of civilian and military pilots are worth stressing. In the
training of air force pilots, conducting 100 h of simulated flights does not
“replace” the flying time achieved on a real aircraft; it merely complements
it. This means that, if the training programme for a given type of aircraft
sets a specific amount of flying time necessary for a pilot to achieve the
intended level of flight training, it should be attained in a real aircraft,
not simulated flight.
It may be assumed that this is
beneficial for the pilot, because increased training means more experience in
aviation. But some drawbacks to this solution may also be noticed. First of
all, there is the economic factor: the application of flight simulators in air
training does not reduce the number of hours of practical training in the
air.
|
Stage
1 |
Basic training |
PZL-130 “Orlik” aircraft simulator |
30 instruction hours |
|
Stage
2 |
Basic training |
TS-11 “Iskra” aircraft simulator |
30 instruction hours |
|
Stage
3 |
Advanced training |
TS-11 “Iskra” aircraft simulator |
20 instruction hours |
|
Tactical training |
TS-11 “Iskra” aircraft simulator |
20 instruction hours |
Fig. 3. Flying time summary for simulator
training of a PAFA officer cadet seeking to become a jet pilot
Along with technological progress, a
new potential for using air simulators has appeared. Consequently, the documentation of a tender
for the purchase of new aircraft for military aviation also includes provisions
regarding the requirements for flight simulators to be delivered, together with
the aircraft ordered.
There is also the possibility to
change the methodology for using flight simulation devices in the process of
instructing and training pilots. The experience gained by pilots trained on the
F-16 aircraft in the US led to the introduction of a new training system in air
force units operating F-16 aircraft in Poland. Flight training on the aircraft
has been integrated with flight simulator training. Before being allowed to
enter the cockpit of the aircraft, the pilot has to complete appropriate
training on the flight simulator. Before the commencement of training in the
air on the two-seat F-16, s/he must complete basic training on the flight
simulator. Only when s/he has mastered basic procedures, such as engine
start-up, checking onboard systems, taxi, take-off, conducting radiotelephony
communication and performing emergency procedures on the ground, i.e., on a
flight simulator, can s/he commence training on the F-16 in the air.
We should state that flight trainers
have been and are still used anyway. The difference in their use is that flight
training on flight simulators, and at a later stage on the aircraft, is carried
out separately, as part of separate training programmes, and at different
times. This means that the trainee pilot has performed the required procedures
on the flight simulator, but their implementation on the aircraft could be
carried out after a considerable period of time.
A cadet officer studying to become a jet aircraft pilot commences his/her
simulator training with basic training on a PZL-130 “Orlik” aircraft simulator.
The training is based on a simulator training syllabus covering 24 flights in
30 h. In order to successfully complete the simulator training, the trainee
must successfully complete all the exercises included in the programme (i.e.,
familiarization flights, basic manoeuvre flights to the training area, traffic
patterns, en route flights, and flights with the instrument approach
procedures), and then pass the final examination by performing an examination
flight.
The system implemented in the F-16
training, however, assumes the need for training on individual missions on the
simulator, directly before they are conducted on the aircraft. The successful
completion of the simulated exercise is the condition for continuing the training
on the aircraft.
When purchasing the M-346 “Master”
aircraft, which is intended to replace the TS-11 “Iskra”, flight simulators
have not been overlooked, and their use will be based on the principles used in
the F-16 pilot training. Additionally, an integrated M-346 aircraft training
system, AJT M-346, has been purchased, which provides the opportunity to
simulate the use of weapons during flights, as well as engagement in combat
missions involving the simulated participation of other aircraft.
4. CONCLUSION
The legitimacy in using training
devices in air training is obvious. First of all, they increase the level of
safety in air training by providing flight crews with the opportunity to
practise procedures in the event of dangerous emergency situations, as well as
reduce flight training costs. They also allow instructors to react to errors
that have occurred by stopping the student’s mission and discussing the errors
on an ongoing basis, and then repeating the selected flight sequence.
Differences in the use of flight
simulators in civil and military aviation result primarily from the different
specifics of aviation tasks performed. Differences also arise from the fact
that flight training for civilian pilots is “dispersed” across many small air training
centres, whereas flight training for military pilots is carried out by the PAFA
in Dęblin, which is the home of the Flight
Simulation Equipment Team.
Despite the many benefits of using
flight simulators, the main obstacle for air training centres interested in
using them in flight training is the very high purchase cost involved. Only a
few air training centres can afford to have their own certified flight
simulators. Owing to technological progress and the arrival of new innovative
solutions, one can expect that, in the future, simulators will become
increasingly precise and more accurately reflect actual flight conditions.
However, it will be difficult to obtain a significant reduction in the
purchasing cost of professional simulators, which would allow their use in
aviation training to be more commonplace.
References
1.
Regulation (EU) No
1178/2011 Annex 1: Part-FCL on Requirements for Members of the Air Crew.
2.
Announcement No.
21 of the President of the Civil Aviation Office of 26 October 2010 on the
Implementation of European Aviation Safety Requirements JAR-FSTD A.
3.
Kozuba
J. 2011. “Czynnik ludzki – rola symulatora lotniczego w szkoleniu lotniczym”. [In Polish: “Human factor – the role of an air
simulator in aviation training”.] Logistyka
6.
4.
Hać R. 2014. Symulatory
w procesie kształcenia i doskonalenia lotniczego personelu latającego i
naziemnego w lotnictwie Sił Zbrojnych. [In Polish: Simulators in the
Process of Education and Development Of Airborne and Ground Personnel in Armed
Forces Aviation.] Siedlce.
5.
Seminar Proceedings for Simulators
in Aviation: New Technologies. 2008. Warsaw, Dęblin.
6.
Kralewski P. 2014. “Pozyskanie systemu szkolenia
zaawansowanego AJT odmieni polskie lotnictwo szkolne”. [In Polish: “Acquiring an advanced AJT training
system will change Polish aviation education”.] Available at:
http://Dlapilota.pl.
7.
Kowalska-Sendek M. 2014. “Odrzutowe szkolenie”. [In Polish: “Jet training”.]
Available at: http://Polska-Zbrojna.pl.
8.
Kowalska-Sendek M., Korsak E. 2018. “Z Iskier na Mastera”. [In Polish: “From sparks to the
master”.] Available at: http://Polska-Zbrojna.pl.
9. Chodorová M., L. Juklová, D. Smetanová, 2017. “Navigation Course in Mathematical Examples – Utilization of the Spherical Geometry”. Nase More 64(3): 67-70. ISSN: 0469-6255.
10. Mišković D., Đ. Mohović, I. Rudan. 2017. ”Comparison of Training Qualifications Programs, for Operating Boats and Yachts, which are not Covered by STCW Convention in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Croatia”. Nase More 64(1): 26-32. ISSN: 0469-6255.
Received 03.11.2017; accepted in revised form 04.02.2018
Scientific Journal of
Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License