1. MOTION Simulation in Flighttraining? Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Huhne EUROPEAN FLIGHT TEST SAFETY WORKSHOP November 10 th -12 th 2009 SAS Radisson, Vienna, Austria TUTORIAL Spatial Disorientation and Optical Illusions – Threat and Challenge

2. Do we need M O T I O N in Flight SIMULATION?

3. Arguments against motion:  Motion does not transfer in training  Large variation between how simulators feel (wash-out filters/motion algorithms)  Experienced pilots know how to fly and do not need motion Arguments in favor of motion:  Motion contributes positively to pilot‘s performance because of faster vestibular perception (quick reaction skills)  Simulators must represent reality as good as possible  Vestibular-vision dynamics need vestibular stimulation for activation Quality motion in training – a controversial discussion

4. Headquater

5. ENGINEERING25 SOFTWARE & FLIGHT SIMULATION18 PROD. & SERVICES40 FINANCE & ADMIN. 11 MARKETING & SALES 4 98 ACADEMICS30% GRADUATES20% UNDERGRADUATES50% 100% Company Profile

6. PRODUCT PORTFOLIO Aeromedical Training  Human Centrifuge  DESDEMONA  AIRFOX® DISO  Hypobaric Chamber  NIGHTFOX®  Ejection Seat Trainer  UWET  Anti-G Trainer Flight Simulation  FTD – PC-21  FTD – PC-7  FTD – Alpha Jet  AIRFOX® DISO  DESDEMONA

7. + HUMAN CENTRIFUGE (3 GENERATIONS)

8. Scope of Training:  Simulation of environmental conditions at high altitudes  Simulation of rapid decompression Design Study of a Hypobaric Chamber

9. Interior of a Hypobaric Chamber

10. + NIGHTFOX® INTEGRATED TRAINING Training Philosophy  Theoretical CBT incl. NV-Physiology  Practical Training/Terrain Board  Practical Training/ Simulator (DISO) Increased Flight Safety

11. Sequence of Bail Out Ejection Seat Training System (with SmartEject™ Technology)

12. SPATIALDISORIENTATIONTRAINING AMST AIRFOX® DISO

13. (10%) Proprio- ceptors Vestibular System Visual System Orientation Sense (80%) THE PRINCIPLE OF SPATIAL ORIENTATION

14. Vestibular System What basics are important to remember?  We feel accelerations only (rotatory/translational)!  Steady rotation is felt like „no rotation“ after 15 sec. (absence of visual cues, i.e. IMC)  Abrupt reduction of steady g-forces >+2g to +1g is felt like –g!  Interdependencies vestibular sense and eyes (vestibulo-ocular reflex)  Vection Illusion (vision stimulates vestibular sense!)

15. Facts of vestibular-visual dynamics:  A mismatch of vestibular and visual sensations may lead to SD in real flight, in simulators it may lead to dizziness or motion sickness  Novice-pilots elaborate their own mental „flight model“ by using all sensory inputs (visual/vestibular/prorioceptive cues most import.)  Experienced pilots can „feel“ vestibular sensations where are none due to their firmly stored mental flight model (s. also „Vection Illusion“) Which arguments are correct?

16. Do we need M O T I O N in SIMULATION?

17. Effectiveness of Motion in SD-Training Verified The goal of the study was: To analyze the Importance of Motion Cues for the effectiveness of an SD-training program by a systematic comparison between a motion based and a fixed base training for private VFR-Pilots without instrument rating. Note: The training was performed on AIRFOX® DISO Goal of Scientific Study MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)

18. Test MOTION ACTIVE Control con., part II MOTION ACTIVE Instruction flight Control con., part I MOTION ACTIVE CG_Mo (N = 12) Control Group Motion Test MOTION ACTIVE Training, part II MOTION INACTIVE Instruction flight Training, part I MOTION INACTIVE TG_noMo (N = 15) Training Group no Motion Test MOTION ACTIVE Training, part II MOTION ACTIVE Instruction flight Training, part I MOTION ACTIVE TG_Mo (N = 15) Training Group Motion PHASE IIIPHASE IIPHASE I Effectiveness of Motion in SD-Training Verified Experimental Design MOBADI Motion Based Disorientation (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)

19. 1.Inadvertent flight into IMC 2.Visual Approach at variable width and slope of Runway (visual illusion) 3. Take-off with pitch-up illusion (somatogravic) 4. Unusual-attitude recoveries 5. Spin recovery in IMC (somatogyral illusion) Main Training/Check Flight Elements MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)

20. Methods of Performance Assessment MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)  Performance o Flight performance data o Flight performance ratings  Psychophysiological Data  Psychological Data

21. Main Results MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)

22. Effectiveness of Motion in SD-Training Verified Conclusion MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)  Motion based SD-training results in significantly better flight performance than fixed base training  Quality motion transfers in the case of SD-training for VFR-pilots  No-motion training does not transfer in SD-training  JAR-FCL gives credits for 5 FH in fixed base simulators (FNPT) in basic flight training (might be questioned)

23. Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training? Thesis  Motion is important for novice pilots for elaboration and storage of individual flight model (procedural memory)  Motion is important for flight maneuvres accompanied by certain linear and/or angular accelerations  Motion is indispensable for SD and HPL Training  Motion in basic flight training might transfer Results of MOBADI and our own experience in SD/HPL Training encouraged us to formulate following Thesis:

24. Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training? Discussions with training experts resultet in as controversial statements as the present discussions about quality motion in flight simulators. There was no way but try it! The idea was developed to train ab-initio student pilots in hovering a helicopter and compare their „simulator“ performance with their „real helicopter“ performance. (Hovering is one of the most demanding basic flight maneuvres in terms of required coordinated inputs of cyclic stick, pedals and collective).

25. Objectives HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009) Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training? The main objective of HEMOT is to evaluate and identify the degree of transfer of training from motion based (full yaw) hover training into real helicopter hovering. As it was not the objective to demonstrate that anybody can learn to hover a helicopter by AIRFOX® DISO training, all candidates received the same 7 training missions plus checkflight regardless of their performance developed in the simulator

26. Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training? Experimental Design HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009) Sim Training AIRFOX® DISO Sim Check Flt. AIRFOX® DISO HELI Familiariz. Jetranger HELI Check Flt. Jetranger Standard Group (N = 12) 7 Missions à 45 min. Hover Checkflight 45 min. Familiarization 40 min. Hover Checkflight 20 min. HPL-Group (N = 12) 7 Missions à 45 min. incl. HPL elements Hover Checkflight 45 min. Familiarization 40 min. Hover Checkflight 20 min.

27.  Performance o Flight performance data (objective) o Flight performance IP-ratings (subjective) o Video Monitoring  Psychophysiological Data  Psychological Data Methods of Performance Assessment HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)

28. HEMOT Video Monitoring

29. Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training Preliminary Results (Subjective IP-Ratings) HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009) Candidate No. IP-Rating

30. Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training Preliminary Results HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training (Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)  Individual performance reached in simulator training very well reflected in real heli „check flights“  Over 80% of candidates performed better than fair (> 2,5)  Only 8,3% of candidates performed poor (< 1,5)  No significance between Standard and HPL-Group

31. Motion Transfers in Basic Flight Training Conclusions for Basic Flight Training in Simulator (type independent)  Quality motion transfers in basic flight training (heli/fixed w.) (6 DoF plus full yaw)  Motion indispensable for implementation of HPL and SD-elements  Motion based basic/recurrent flight training increases flight safety  Wx. and traffic independent cost effective training  Basic training in fixed base simulators questioned

32. Motion Transfers in Basic Flight Training Conclusions for Basic Flight Training in Simulator (type independent)  Quality motion dependent on training tasks/goals (6 dof/full yaw)  Quality motion dependent on student/pilot skill (individual mental model)  HPL/SD elements may be embedded into basic flight missions in motion simulators  HPL/SD elements cannot be trained in real flight (lack of environmental conditions or too dangerous)

33. What to do now? Motion Transfers in Basic Flight Training  Development of new class motion based part task trainers (PTT) (high fidelity motion, generic cockpit, generic flight performance)  PTTs represent class of a/c or helicopter  Training Tasks: o Initial and recurrent basic flight training (VFR/IFR) o HPL/SD training including upset-recoveries and spins o Special heli effects (white out, brown out, watering, moving pads) o Night vision goggles training (NVT) o Hypoxia training (simulation of high cabin altitudes)  Convince regulators to certify PTTs and grant credits

34. BE AWARE OF! Many thanks for listening! Questions?