Agreeing to new training regulations is one thing - being able to afford them is another.
Graham Warwick/ATLANTA
Regional airlines have long hoped for advances in technology, which would make flight simulation more affordable. Now US regulatory changes are planned which will make simulator training for all airlines compulsory, regardless of size. The drive for low-cost simulation has taken on a new urgency.
Two crashes in late 1994 galvanised a rewriting of the rulebooks governing regional airline safety. As a result, all commuter carriers will be required to train their pilots in simulators, rather than in the aircraft. This is expected to reduce accidents, not only by eliminating unnecessary flying, but also by allowing more demanding training to be conducted in the safety of the simulator.
Many regional airlines already conduct much of their training in simulators, but the goal of industry-wide use has been held back by cost. Although prices have dropped in recent years, a flight simulator can still represent an investment greater than the aircraft it represents.
Even before the crashes, an industry-led initiative was under way to determine how much training normally performed in an expensive full-flight simulator could be accomplished in a less costly flight-training device (FTD).
The initiative, taken by Canadian FTD manufacturer Atlantis Aerospace and IVEX, a US manufacturer of low-cost visual systems, called for the scientific study of the training possible in a visual-equipped FTD. The study involves Florida-based Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and Delta Airlines.
Atlanta, Georgia-based Delta is providing both FTDs and pilots for the study. Embry-Riddle is supplying pilots and the scientific analysis. The US Federal Aviation Administration's National Simulator Programme, based in Atlanta, is monitoring the study closely.
Ironically, the FTD was conceived as a device to bring the benefits of simulation to the regional-airline industry. In fact, while major airlines have embraced the use of FTDs regional have virtually ignored them. The problem lies with the reduced training possible in a lower-fidelity machine.
LEVELS OF SIMULATION
The FAA specifies four levels of flight simulator, the highest of which, Levels C and D, allow most or all training to be conducted in the simulator. In addition, there are seven levels of flight-training device, distinguished by increasing fidelity and capability. A Level 6 FTD, for example, provides an accurate representation of a specific aircraft's cockpit layout and flying characteristics.
Where FTDs have found application is in training programmes where their use is integrated with that of full-flight simulators. Among US airlines, Delta has been in the forefront of FTD use. The result of integrated training-device and simulator use has been an overall reduction in the time required to train a pilot, says Tom Peters, manager, training programmes development.
Peters says that Delta decided to introduce training devices five years ago when it saw an opportunity to reduce the simulator time required and so dispose of excess capacity by either selling simulators or by renting them to other airlines.
The company's training programme for McDonnell Douglas MD-88 pilots originally consisted of 120h of ground school and ten simulator periods. The present programme, which begins with computer-based training (CBT) and progresses via a computer-aided procedures trainer (CAPT) and Level 6 FTD to a Level D flight-simulator, consists of 70h ground school and eight simulator periods.
Further time will be saved, Peters says, when Delta converts MD-88 pilot training to the FAA's advanced qualification programme (AQP). This replaces the traditional hours-based training approach with one based on proficiency. The AQP encourages the use of training devices and training to proficiency reduces the amount of time required, he says.
Reduced training time pays off for the airline in several ways, Peters says. It means that fewer pilots are in training at one time and more are available on the line, easing scheduling problems. It also increases the throughput of the existing training system, avoiding the need to add expensive simulators as the aircraft fleet expands.
Delta has already realised time saving, in converting its Boeing 757/767 training, to the AQP. Initial qualification of its first 757/767 pilots using the AQP was completed in 1994 and the group is due back for continuation qualification (recurrent training) in June, when the airline will be able to assess how successful the AQP has been, he says.
Delta, meanwhile, is moving ahead to introduce the AQP for the MD-88/90 in August, the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 in September and the Boeing 737 in October. The airline plans to have initial and continuation qualification programmes in place for these types by January 1996, when it will begin task analysis - the initial stage of the AQP - for the 134 Boeing 727s and 56 Lockheed L-1011s, the only three-crew aircraft left in its 530-strong fleet.
LEARNING CURVE
In Delta's training programmes, pilots begin by learning about the aircraft's systems using CBT, then learn how to operate the systems in the CAPT. They begin to learn how to fly the aircraft in the FTD and complete their training in the simulator. The key to the system's success lies in the transfer of knowledge between devices.
Proponents of the visual-equipped flight-training device believe that many of the training tasks now performed in a $10 million full-flight simulator can be accomplished in a $5 million FTD. If true, this has obvious implications for the regional-airline industry, which is looking for a low-cost entry into simulation.
Delta and the FAA have a slightly different viewpoint. They believe that a pilot trained on a visual-equipped FTD may learn more quickly once in the simulator, requiring fewer repetitions to achieve proficiency and so reducing the time spent in the simulator.
Either way, the visual FTD holds the promise of reducing training costs. The reason for this, explains Paul Ray, head of the FAA's National Simulator Programme, is the reinforcement of training which the visual system provides. When a pilot completes a manoeuvre in a visual-equipped device, or simulator, the out-the-window scene provides confirmation that the aircraft is - or is not - where it was expected to be.
The strong flying cues provided are the main reason airlines have traditionally specified more-sophisticated visual systems than required by regulations. Systems generating wide-angle, photo-realistic, daylight images are now the standard for flight simulators.
To prove the training value of a visual FTD, Atlantis and IVEX launched the scientific study now under way. Delta has made available for the study two CAE Electronics-built MD-88 Level 6 FTDs, one of which has been modified with the addition of a single-channel, two-window IVEX VDS-2000 visual system.
Two groups of pilots are involved in the study. The first group, consisting of Embry-Riddle professors and students and representing low-time pilots typical of those hired by the regional, underwent training in 1994. The second group, consisting of experienced Delta pilots, is now undergoing training.
Each pilot group has been split into two, Peters explains: a control group which completes Delta's normal MD-88 training course, including use of the unmodified FTD; and a test group which completes a modified training course using the visual FTD. Embry-Riddle observers are tasked with determining how well each pilot in each group performs.
Delta modified its existing MD-88 training course to move the first five (of eight) periods from the Level 5 flight-simulator to the visual FTD. Manoeuvres which require a motion system, such as an engine failure on take-off, were rescheduled into the final three simulator periods leading to a type rating, Peters says.
"The aim of the study is not to prove what can be done in the FTD, but to see if there is a difference in the pilots coming out of the FTD; to see if they pick things up quicker," he emphasises. Ray also underlines that the FAA's interest in the study is to determine whether a visual FTD results in a better "transfer of behaviour" from device to aircraft.
Peters says that Delta is using furloughed pilots for the study, all with similar qualifications and a similar time at Delta as 727 or L-1011 first officers or flight engineers. All will go back on furlough on completion of the training, but with an MD-88 type rating as a consequence of taking part in the study. Plans to put some of the pilots into the aircraft to check the effectiveness of the training have been dropped as unnecessary.
VALUABLE LESSONS
Although the study is still under way - the results will be released at a training conference in Atlanta in November - some valuable lessons have already been learned, Ray says. Principal among these is the discovery that adding a visual system to an existing FTD is not as simple a procedure as it first seems.
To reduce cost, aircraft style instrument panel back lighting is not used in FTDs designed to be operated under normal lighting in an office-like environment. The brightness levels produced by visual systems are insufficient to allow use in a fully lighted room, however. As a result, Delta had to modify the instrument-panel lighting on its MD-88 FTD to allow operation in lowered ambient-light levels.
Atlantis and IVEX plan to present an interim report on the study at the Paris air show in June. The companies report intense interest in the study and already have orders in hand for visual-equipped FTDs. China Southern Airlines has ordered two 737 visual FTDs and Florida's Miami-Dade Community College as ordered two similar devices for the Raytheon King Air.
This one study will not be sufficient, to determine whether regional airlines will be able to use visual FTDs, to reduce or replace the flight simulator training, to be required under new regulations but if the results are positive, it will give impetus to the drive, to reduce the cost of flight simulation.
Source: Flight International
