Helicopter Simulators

[FlyinRock]

For those of you with time in them, what did you like or dislike in them? What would you like to see on one? Oddball question but do you know who made the ones you "flew"?
I'm doing a paper on their efficacy and can use all the inputs available.
Thanks and Semper Fi
Rocky
Helicopter Instrument Instructor

 

[phrogpilot73]

The one's I've flown in were good for two things: instruments, and EPs. They just were high-enough definition to be good for anything else.

 

[Stearmann4]

Our MH-47G sims are level D, full motion. the 47G cockpit is so procedurally complex regarding page flow, that the sim is a must. When new pilots begin the 47G transition, they spend their first 25 hours in the sim and even take their first stage check in it. To do the same in the aircraft would severly bog down the pipeline, not to mention sitting on the ramp for hours while a guy figured out how get the thing started up.

One if the biggest benefits is being able to load a terrain data base from anywhere in the world. Before a large or complex mission, it's standard to get everyone in the sim and allow than to fly the assault (to include hitting the tanker) several times before heading overseas to do the real thing if time allows. They're even working on a "back-ender sim" basically, the back of a 47G with the same graphics, vibrations, etc as the front to allow crew members to work on their calls and crew coordination.

For us at least, it's invaluable, and the only probalem is that we can't schedule enough time in it.

MR-

 

[Jim123]

The one's I've flown in were good for two things: instruments, and EPs. They just were high-enough definition to be good for anything else.

I'd add tactics trainers as well, for all of the same reasons and within all the same limitations you can have a good EP sim and/or an instrument sim.

Good:
-Building block/stepping stone for learning "monkey skills" or "buttonology"
-Building your scan- whether it's training your brain and eyeballs which engine gauge/flight instruments to look at for what piece of information you need during whatever maneuver you're doing, or what part of the weapons system display/tactical plot/control panel to look at for whatever you're doing with whatever piece of gear, building a scan is building a scan.
-A good simulator instructor can really teach you something new and useful whether that's a systems malfunction or setting up different angle on a tactical scenario
-You can try stuff in the sim that would be too dangerous to try in the aircraft
-Less overhead time in the sim when you don't have to read the discrepancy book, preflight, transit to the working area...

Bad:
-No sims that I've ever seen are quite as, uh, chaotic as an aircraft (smell, vibration, heat or cold, radios)


If the flight crew doesn't take the mindset that the event is "just a simulator" they tend to think and act more realistically instead of being distracted by wondering what the instructor expects them to do next. Psychologically I think this is a lot like breaking a student or junior copilot of the "whatever I do in the aircraft my big brother can save us" mentality.


But Rocky and Phrogpilot already knew all this

 

[MasterBates]

The problem I saw in the 60B sims was that the air model was essentially correct for forward flight, but did not even hover/transition even close to correct. That, and being graded on doing autos in the sim pissed me off a bit when I was in the RAG. It just did not fly right.

Good procedural, good for tactics, but not so good for FAM type stuff.

I can't speak to the 60B vs 47G, but having graphics beyond that of an early 80s video game would be nice.

I still think the 60B and E-2C should have a bitching betty that sounds like a sim IP clicking on the console, because that's usually my clue to start looking at gauges.

 

[skidkid]

The most glaring limitation on the sim beyond bad aero models, outdated graphics and lack of "feel" (and the Cobra sim has all of these) is that at the end of the day it is limited to single ship operations. Everything we do in all USMC communities is dependent on being in flights of 2 or more. If you cant work the dynamics of at least a section you are limited to instruments, and switchology.

 

[Lawman]

The most glaring limitation on the sim beyond bad aero models, outdated graphics and lack of "feel" (and the Cobra sim has all of these) is that at the end of the day it is limited to single ship operations. Everything we do in all USMC communities is dependent on being in flights of 2 or more. If you cant work the dynamics of at least a section you are limited to instruments, and switchology.

The new ones we have over in the Advanced bay are actually capable of multiple aircraft into one enviroment so its not beyond the scope of our technology just the scope of the Budget.

Agreed with completely useless Aero models. I did an Auto in the sims and somehow had something like 50 knots sideward flight at my decel point. They dont hover right, they dont take off right, they dont compensate for translational tendency right... However its nice to be able to shoot 6 ILS approaches in an hour and a half time vice 1 in the real aircraft. Also great for bottonology and getting used to Radio calls before you have to try and stumble through clearances and readbacks on an actual frequency.

 

[lowflier03]

The new ones are supposed to correct all this. Was working with the guys doing the upgrades and the flight mechanics are going to be fixed. The visuals are going to be based off of actual imagery, not just computer added buildings. The plan for the next few years is to link front end and back end of the Sierra sims and then link those to another front and back end so you can actually fly as a section of 2, see the correct imagery, TERF, shoot the sim guns, etc. (Kind of like an upgrade to the current SH-60F MST) The new setup is also supposed to be accurate enough to do CAL's and Freedeck landings.

 

[insanebikerboy]

The problem I saw in the 60B sims was that the air model was essentially correct for forward flight, but did not even hover/transition even close to correct. That, and being graded on doing autos in the sim pissed me off a bit when I was in the RAG. It just did not fly right.

Sim instructor in San Diego said the 60F sims modeled a loss of tail rotor ep as if the entire tail actually fell off from transition section back. Not quite like real life, especially for autos.

 

[lowflier03]

Sim instructor in San Diego said the 60F sims modeled a loss of tail rotor ep as if the entire tail actually fell off from transition section back. Not quite like real life, especially for autos.

Note: In my case that wasn't far from what really happened. So it's not necessarily a bad thing to practice worst case.

The 60F sims are modeled that way. They are also incorrect in that after the loss of tail auto they yaw right with the pull at the bottom instead of left like in real life.

 

[BACONATOR]

Unlike Fixed-wing, helos have a LOT of EPs that simply CAN NOT be simulated in the cockpit, so sims become essential. For all the tail-rotor and dual-engine failure EPs, they are crucial for gaining proficiency.

What is NOT good about helo sims is that flying a helo (visually) requires a LOT of visual and kinesthetic cues which can't be re-created in any sim I've ever been in. So trying to work on flying autos/precision approaches/etc to a spot or running landings to the runway doesn't work and more importantly adversely affects your proficiency in the helo since it is nothing like flying the real thing.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Note: In my case that wasn't far from what really happened.

Out of curiosity, where you flying with Kristen?

 

[lowflier03]

Negative, think more recent.

 

[Gatordev]

The new ones are supposed to correct all this. Was working with the guys doing the upgrades and the flight mechanics are going to be fixed. The visuals are going to be based off of actual imagery, not just computer added buildings. The plan for the next few years is to link front end and back end of the Sierra sims and then link those to another front and back end so you can actually fly as a section of 2, see the correct imagery, TERF, shoot the sim guns, etc. (Kind of like an upgrade to the current SH-60F MST) The new setup is also supposed to be accurate enough to do CAL's and Freedeck landings.

The Romeo sim does most of that (when it works). They also link into the entire airwing so everyone can "fly" together, even if some folks didn't leave the pier. The visuals are really good.

Back in ~'05, the Lima Blackhawk sim we used in HI also had most of this. I could land myself on the back of a correctly rendered FFG w/ no problems. Something that's almost impossible in the Bravo sim, even w/ the instructor guiding you into the trap.

 

[MasterBates]

The B sim seemed like it always ran out of aft cyclic and pedal authority. Full left pedal and it just barely creeps around. (anyone who has flown a 60 knows hey have pretty good T/R authority, even when heavy).

The TOFT (no-motion sim/OFT-6 I think is its official designation) was supposed to be able to link up with the wing/P3/HS sims but I was never able to get that to work, even with the full "brain trust" at the WWS trying to make shit work, but that has been over 3 years ago, and it could not do ASW at the time. Strictly an EP/ASUW sim.