Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

MLA Vancouver 8 October 2008 Qualification of military flight simulators The Dutch approach Hans Jansen National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Herman Koolstra.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "MLA Vancouver 8 October 2008 Qualification of military flight simulators The Dutch approach Hans Jansen National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Herman Koolstra."— Presentation transcript:

1 MLA Vancouver 8 October 2008 Qualification of military flight simulators The Dutch approach Hans Jansen National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Herman Koolstra Military Aviation Authority MAA-NLD

2 Chinook in brown out conditions

3 A Chinook in a brown out condition – Very common in Uruzghan – Hard to train at home – Limited resources for training Can it be trained in a simulator? Can it be trained completely in a simulator? What kind of simulator to prevent….. 3

4 4

5 Military Aviation Authority -NLD Why a Military Aviation Authority? –Separate inspection and execution Tasks Develop standards Certification Inspection (audits) Our task: –Make standards for all Military Flight Simulators 5

6 Objective: maximize training value To reach the objective two fundamental problems must be investigated. 1.What is the level of simulation required for a task to train that particular task completely in an FSTD? 2.What is the minimum acceptable level (no negative training) and how much training can be done on that particular simulator.

7 JAR Flight Simulator Training Devices (FSTD) Full Flight Simulator (FFS) –level A B,C D Flight Training Device (FTD) –level 1,2,3 Flight & Navigation Procedures Trainer (FNPT) –level I, II, III,MCC Basic Instrument Training Device (BITD) A Full Flight Simulator level D is the FSTD with the highest fidelity level, and the Basic Instrument Training Device has the lowest level, but sufficient for instrument training.

8 Limitations of the JAR-FSTD Requirements not clearly coupled to flying tasks Rigid qualification –lowest subsystem determines qualification of the simulator Training credits not always indicated No military tasks

9 Proposed solution Task oriented Sub system oriented - Human perception or technology driven? 9

10 Task oriented 10 Task Ground operations Start up Taxi Normal flight ops Take off Climb VMC Instrument departure Level flight (medium level navigation IMC) Level flight (medium level navigation VMC) Level flight (low level navigation) Instrument approach Descent Hover Landing (on controlled airfield) Landing under adverse weather conditions (snow/rain) Slope landings Special operations Autorotation Mountain operations Cross wind landings Brown out landings White out landings Engine related emergency procedures System related emergencies Landing related emergencies Military operations Hoisting Slung load operations (also civil) Roping operations Deck landings NVG operations A/G gunnery (= all weapon delivery) Escape manoeuvres Nap of Earth (NOE) flying Multi-ship operation

11 Subsystem oriented Instructor/operator station Visual system (image, FOV) Motion system (envelope, phase) Sound system Cockpit Performance & Control Aircraft subsystems Avionics Weather ATC / C2 Threats & targets cooperative models Integration & Correlation 11

12 Basis for standards (1) What is required for full 100% compatibility Human limitations –Forward compatibility –Independent of present day technology 12

13 Different fidelity 13

14 Basis for standards(2) What is the required minimum standard to do any training at all? JAR Little evidence 14

15 Euclid 11.1 MASTER Errors in aerobatic training depending on previous PC training 15

16 How does it look 16

17 How does it look 17 Qualification Level General Technical Requirements Field of View 1FOV 45ºH x 30ºVper pilot(=JAR level A) 2FOV 150ºH x 40ºV per crew, continuous(=JAR level C) 3FOV 150ºH x 60ºV per crew, continuous 4FOV 180ºH x 60ºVper crew, continuous(=JAR level D) 5FOV identical with FOV from the pilot station of the simulated aircraft.

18 Training value How much training value? –first conservative allowance –adjusted, based on experience

19 Task list ( a piece) Rating tasks. –Checklist –Expertise –Confirmation in a FSTD, main reason for subjective tests as well. 19

20 Checklist example Task qualification checklist ( for 100%): Motion: –Is the task high gain or are motion inputs primary triggers: Minimum level 1 –Is the movement also multi axis: minimum level 2. –Does the task require aircraft vibration cues: minimum level is 3. –If level 2 or 3 motion is required phase difference should be less than 60 degrees during typical task execution. Phase difference of less than 30 degrees is required for 100% flight replacement. 20

21 Example score IOS Visual Motion Sound Cockpit Performance & Control Subsystem Avionics Weather ATC Threats & targets Cooperative models integration FOV Phas e Maximum level (-) FSTD(x) Normal flight ops Take off Climb VMC Level flight (medium level navigation IMC) Level flight (medium level navigation VMC) Level flight (low level navigation)> 100' Descent Hover Approach & Landing under adverse weather conditions (snow/rain/icing) Cross wind landings/ windshear Brown out/ white out landings

22 Operators benefits Each FSTD can be used. The training per FSTD can be optimized. Flight training can be optimized. 22

23 Way ahead Initial step is completed –FSTD-H Second step – qualification Third step – fixed wing. Continuing effort –Improve the system –Biggest challenge the minimum level 23

24 Question time 24


Download ppt "MLA Vancouver 8 October 2008 Qualification of military flight simulators The Dutch approach Hans Jansen National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Herman Koolstra."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google