There is little doubt that simulators have redefined the realm of initial and recurrent training in both Military and Commercial aviation. Cost benefits have been a primary consideration. Lowering the risk of training has been the other major benefit. Achieving balance between simulator and real-aircraft training time has been a subject of much debate and research. Leaning too much to either format has impact. On one side, cost impacts could be significant. On the other, the trainee has little feel for what it is like to be performing this tasks in a real aircraft.
There is also truth to the fact that some areas of training are better handled in a sim while others absolutely need an aircraft.
In my opinion, simulators have evolved to a point where they are close to ‘as real as it gets’. Transfer of training has proven to be effective. Aircrafts have become more technically advanced and a lot of training is focused on procedure and automation – an area where sims lend themselves to really well.
Replication of real-world weather, comms, terrain, flight dynamics have become possible. There isn’t a lot of loss in ambient factors in a simulator today.
In fact the term ‘supplement’ almost implies that sims are secondary. That has changed with time. In many areas, simulators end up being primary channels for training while aircraft-based training come in at an equal percentage or less.
Again, the one major risk of doing too much time in a sim is that it may lead to a situation where the trainee has little or no feel for what the real world circumstances will be like. This too, then comes down to how well real world factors are modeled into a simulation ecosystem – aka fidelity.
Author: cjois
Aviation History
Here is a nice compilation from CNN today….
http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/prototype-planes/index.html
Aviation and Automation
Automation has eased workload on the flightdeck but, in turn, has also become a source of increased cognitive load on pilots (Salas & Maurino, 2010). Coherence has emerged as a necessary competency for modern day pilots. In order to mitigate surprises, pilots need to carry mental models of underlying systems and plausible use scenarios (Sherry et al., 2001). Coherence techniques can be enabled (or impeded) by a top-down human influence known as ‘Attention’ (Gibb, Gray & Scharff, 2010). Collectively, these expectations are onerous and it is important to ask whether the human mind can truly live up to them. This question is even more important given the levels of automation complexity in modern day aircraft.
One of the highlights of this week’s readings was the aspect of ‘coherence’ (Salas & Maurino, 2010). For coherence to be effective, pilots need to have a deep understanding of the underlying logic, systems and automation impacts. The cognitive load has grown significantly over the years and continues to grow even faster today. While it is possible to acquire and display a lot more data in the form of meaningful information on extra-rich customizable displays, an important consideration would be to understand at what point this reaches practical human limits.
In the end, there is no limit on information that can be provided or should be assimilated by the crew. What matters is how much can be meaningfully assimilated in limited amounts of time (many times minutes or seconds) and most importantly, acted upon to achieve an outcome.
Information overload occurs frequently and very rapidly. My humble observation is that a few different visual and aural call-outs occurring simultaneously (example: a GPWS callout and a TCAS alert) are enough to cause overload in an otherwise quiet flightdeck. If they occur to be in conflict, its worse. With rising stress levels, saturation occurs faster (Salas & Maurino, 2010). The ability to filter, and hone in, on important elements of information being presented is the answer to avoiding overwhelm. I believe that this ability is a function of two things – a) experience and b) personality.
I was reading the September 2015 issue of the Flying Magazine on my way back from a business trip recently. Les Abend, a 777 captain, who features a regular section in the magazine has an interesting article on simulators in the September edition. In fact, he specifically calls out to the evolving role of Human Factors in aviation. He also alludes to the topic of automation diluting core flying skills. Interesting read.
References
Abend, L. (2015, 09). IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE SIMULATOR. Flying, 142, 84-84,86. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1704438154?accountid=27203
Dunwoody, P. T. (2009). Introduction to the special issue: Coherence and correspondence in judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(2), 113. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1011289242?accountid=27203
Foster, Jessica (2015, October 21). https://erau.instructure.com/courses/23563/discussion_topics/200361
Gibb, R., Gray, R., & Scharff, L. (2010). Aviation Visual Perception : Research Misperception and Mishaps. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Group. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com (Links to an external site.)
Ledesma, Julio. (2015, October 19). Message posted to https://erau.instructure.com/courses/23563/discussion_topics/200361
Mosier, K., Sethi, N., McCauley, S., Khoo, L., Richards, J., Lyall, E.. . Hecht, S. (2003). Factors impacting coherence in the automated cockpit. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 47(1), 31-31.
Salas, E., Jentsch, F., & Maurino, D. (Eds.). (2010). Human factors in aviation. Academic Press.
Sherry, L., Feary, M., Polson, P., & Palmer, E. (2001). What’s it doing now? Taking the covers off autopilot behavior. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1-6).
Role of Simulators in FAA’s NextGen program
Simulation ecosystems are used in a variety of applications beyond their use in training of pilots. While simulators were initially used to help train pilots, they rapidly evolved into playing important roles in advancing aviation overall. Human factors assessments, aircraft and airport design, flightdeck instrumentation design, operating procedure development, air traffic control training, air traffic flow management evaluations are some examples of where simulators are used outside of the realm of direct pilot training (Lee, 2005).
A specific current day example of the use of simulators outside of pilot training is in FAA’s NextGen Program. Air traffic is expected to increase over the next 15 to 20 years and the “NextGen” Program is a comprehensive overhaul of the US National Airspace System to respond to the upcoming demands. NextGen introduces revolutionary new approaches to capacity problems. It will use newer technologies and automation to shift the way air traffic is managed. NextGen is not one idea, but a series of initiatives aimed at transforming different aspects of the aviation ecosystem (Federal Aviation Administration, 2014). The program has been structured into a set of program areas, typically focused on laying out infrastructure. These areas include Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), Data Communications (DataComm), National Airspace System Voice System (NASVS), Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR), and System Wide Information Management (SWIM). NextGen also has a set of portfolios that deliver new capabilities. The portfolios are Time-based Flow Management, Collaborative Air Traffic Management, Improved Approaches and Low-Visibility Operations, Improved Surface Operations, On-Demand NAS Information, Performance-based Navigation, Improved Multiple Runway Operations, Separation Management, and Environment & Energy (Federal Aviation Administration, 2014).
Clearly, the NextGen program will advance commercial aviation in the US and serve as a role model for other such implementations. It will also require changes that could impact the design of future aircraft, air traffic control processes and devices, airport layouts and maintenance facilities, training content, training processes, job aids and performance support systems. The NextGen program will rely heavily on the use of simulation environments to design and test the necessary changes (Callantine, 2008; Crutchfield, 2011; Doucet, 2013; Hunter, 2009). Many of the proposed changes need to be tested before implementation begins, but it is difficult to conduct human factors tests on an environment that does not yet exist. The use of synthetic environments in these situations bring benefits in terms of cost and risk. There is significant benefit to being able to simulate scenarios and test out human interaction with machines before their use in real-world environments.
One very specific example is the use of NextSim. NextSim is an ATC research simulator that collects performance, workload, and situation awareness data to address human factors/ ergonomics issues that might arise in NextGen (Durso, Stearman, & Robertson, 2015). Another example is where, according to a Rockwell Collins’ release, a Boeing 737 flight simulator in the FAA’s Flight Operations Simulation Laboratory (FOSL) in Oklahoma City, will be used to study the viability for NextGen to safely achieve benefits such as lower landing minima by using Rockwell Collins head-up displays with synthetic and enhanced vision during different phases of flight in low visibility conditions (“FAA chooses Rockwell Collins’ guidance systems”, 2012). At Oshkosh AirVenture 2010, the FAA NextGen Data Communications (DataComm) program demonstrated by using simulators that new Data Comm technology will deliver major savings in time, money, fuel, as well as, environmental effects. The technologies introduced by DataComm included its new air traffic control (ATC) and Boeing 737 cockpit simulators (Gonda & Zillinger, 2010).
Callantine (2008) describes the use of simulation to analyze human-in-the-loop route structure simulation data. Hunter (2009) describes the design and test of the simulators for use in NextGen, and further proposes test protocols for NextGen simulators. Doucett (2013) details out a cross-organization effort to setup a distributed environment comprised of aircraft and ATC simulator that can serve as a collaboration tool for NextGen design and test. Prevot, Homola, and Mercer (2008) study the trajectory based operations, a NextGen component using simulators.
Based on the discussion above, there is little doubt that simulators and synthetic environments have, and continue to play, a critical role in aviation, over and beyond their use for direct pilot training.
References
Callantine, T. (2008). An integrated tool for NextGen concept design, fast-time simulation, and analysis. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies (MST) Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Crutchfield, J. M. (2011). NextGen update. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82(9), 925-925. doi:10.3357/ASEM.3117.2011.
Doucett, S. (2013). Distributed environment experiment for NextGen. doi:10.2514/6.2013-4277.
Durso, F. T., Stearman, E. J., & Robertson, S. (2015). NextSIM: A platform-independent simulator for NextGen HF/E research. Ergonomics in Design, 23(4), 23-27. doi:10.1177/1064804615572624.
FAA chooses Rockwell Collins’ guidance systems with synthetic and enhanced vision to support NextGen efforts. (2012). Entertainment Close-Up.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2014). NextGen Implementation Plan 2014. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/library/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2014.pdf
Gonda, J., & Zillinger, E. (2010). Digital avionics. Aerospace America, 48(11), 44.
Hunter, G. (2009) Testing and validation of NextGen simulators. doi:10.2514/6.2009-6124.
Lee, A. T. (2005). Flight simulation: Virtual environments in aviation. Burlington, VT;Aldershot, England;: Ashgate.
Prevot, T., Homola, J., & Mercer, J. (2008). Initial study of Controller/Automation integration for NextGen separation assurance. () doi:10.2514/6.2008-6330.
The networked simulator
Over the past 6 months i have done so much work on my simulator that it made me think about writing this post on the compelling possibilities that arise from a networked simulator and a network of simulators.
Just over the past two weeks, in helping out our friends at PilotEdge, I was part of a team that generated traffic for testing avionics equipment and the TCAS system for a design team. Before that, i was part of a team that was itself testing a newly designed simulator. back in February of 2018, as part of study worm at Embry Riddle University, there were many discussions around the use of distributed remote ops concepts that could help build safety scenarios in the use of drones. While all or most of these are concepts, it is very apparent that the combinatorial power of a simulation appliance and the network is phenomenal.
The internet of things is here. Pretty much any device can be provisioned with an IP address. As such, it can participate in a network. The simulator was an extraordinarily useful safety and proficiency device. Combining it into a network has brought out a series of new possibilities. Real-time weather generation, traffic scenario generation, communications testing are just a few of those advantages.
The ability for a piece of simulation hardware to talk to learning management systems and learning content management systems is a valuable opportunity. Taking it a step further. if the learning management system was adaptive, this would add a new dimension to pacing learning based on learner assimilation and learner type. Now with the use of ML, the generation of scenarios based on measures of central tendency have become easier. Content packaging using SCORM and/or IMS makes for standard scenario packages. A learning record store provides for persistence in student progress tracking. Progress dashboards and giving the learner a unified experience becomes very possible. There are many other such benefits.
Aggregation has been the sought after path for several years. Simulators have arrived at that point now.
CJ
Transfer of training and Fidelity requirements
The ability to transfer training is what makes simulation environments important. Mirroring reality becomes very important. This theory is associated with general principles of learning psychology stemming back to the early 1900s.
There is a correlation between the objectives of training and need for fidelity.There are different phases of flight and not all are equal in all respects. However, each one demands a different type aspect of fidelity to be modeled accurately. A x-wind trainer training for crab angle or slip on short final will require that the DOFs are well modeled. In cruise flight on autopilot at 30000 feet, DOF modeling is less important. Instrument scans, PPoS and fuel monitoring become extremely important. Hence instrument fidelity takes dominance.
Its well documented in human factors research that complacency and ‘falling behind the curve’ is a common issue in cruise flight. Aural warnings, the FMS and Autopilot will need to be really high fidelity to accurately model nav and fuel burn. Coming back into a terminal area, radio comms, traffic, congestion, weather modeling (mins) take dominance.
Hence in my opinion, fidelity is a function of training objective and in each phase of flight a different aspect of fidelity takes over. I don’t think there is ever a ‘low stress’ phase of flight.
CPJ
A380
Models
This model is a handful to fly… amazing detail and large.
General Aviation fields
#GeneralAviation #airstrips can sometimes be hard to find in congested areas. There are approximately 17000 of these in the US, but we commonly only refer to the 5-10 large airports.
Here is one of them…
MD-11: the workhorse
The #MD11 is still serving as a #freighter for many air carriers. Here is one from the #Lufthansa fleet.
