Budget Cuts and Flight/Simulator Training

[MAKE VAPES]

The Naval Aviation Simulator Master Plan is alive and well, and caving to the forces of the Fleet Synthetic Training gods. The agreement to trade flight hours for sim dollars/hours was made a few year back (for some platforms)... There were the charts showing the quick ROI if you considered sim operating costs a sunk... I couldn't figure out how to draw curves for the human cost other than the 15 hours per month and less than 400 hours total dual risk category for class A mishaps graphs CNA did (they also did some first bomb hit% after sim events too, interesting Operations Analysis stuff). I kept suggesting re-doing the mishap rate studies with monthly and total sim hours included, the data in logging sim hours for T/R wasn't mature enough, so keep logging your hours and synthetic T/R!

 

[BACONATOR]

I'm seeing exactly what Brett is talking about. Our 60 sim is great for EP/FAM/BI/RI stuff, as well as all the switchology of the tactical stuff. Beyond that, I'd want to be flying.

Yeah, but it's also used extensively for the ASUW syllabus. But yeah, that's a lot of button-pushing and heads down on the FLIR page, so I get that. Not a very good "stick and rudder" tactics simulator.

 

[xj220]

Biggest thing that I say about this - people are lazy in the sim. The scenario isn't taken as seriously, and sims do not do a good job of letting Murphy take over the problem.

A lot of that depends on the person themselves though. If you don't take the sim seriously then that's on you, not the sim. I agree that the threat of impending doom with a fuck up isn't there, but I'd be lying if I said I don't get nervous whenever it looks like I won't be landing shiny side up.

 

[Renegade One]

Has the military gotten any better in somehow making "sim time" somehow bank-able/meaningful/log-able for folks so that any "tradeoff" between actual flight time and "hi-fi" sim time is credited to the aviator? This has always seemed the "dark side" of the equation. There is no "sim time" in any of my logbooks, although there was much by way of "very valuable sim time"...frankly, critical tactical environments that just couldn't be duplicated in the air.

There always seemed to be a need for a way to gain the credit hours for the work. Just didn't happen much in my time. It getting any better?

Aside: Do the commercial air carriers credit sim time, for anything...quals, currency, actual instrument, whatever?

 

[xj220]

For P-3 land, we can do NATOPS checks, upgrading checkrides and and instrument checks in them. We can also use half of our approaches towards our annual IXs, as well. As far as other hours I'd have to double check, but we do get stuff out of them.

 

[Renegade One]

For P-3 land, ...we do get stuff out of them.

Thanks. I guess the question is "anything a future employer" might recognize/credit?

 

[xj220]

Our sims are called "Level-D" equivalent. What that truly means I don't know, but I know there's others on here who can chime in with that.

 

[HAL Pilot]

How are the sims that the commercial guys use? I hear they have some pretty high fidelity stuff.

We do all our training in the sims. The first flight in the plane is one with pax. The sims are probably 97% accurate and if anything, harder to fly than the plane.

Aside: Do the commercial air carriers credit sim time, for anything...quals, currency, actual instrument, whatever?

You can use the sim for all your training and currency except for autoland currency. You have to do initial autoland training in the sim but then you have to do at least two in the aircraft during Cat I or better weather before doing an actual autoland in Cat II or III weather. You can NOT log sim time as flight time and if you show up with it logged as anything but sim time for an interview, you can probably kiss that job goodbye. Loggable only as sim as well as the number & type of approaches.

Our sims are called "Level-D" equivalent. What that truly means I don't know, but I know there's others on here who can chime in with that.

Level D are the highest and what we use at the airlines. They are considered to accurately represent actual flight in the aircraft in all aspects. You can do all your training in the sim and be considered qualified by the FAA to go fly the plane.

 

[squeeze]

That's where the future is. The biggest complaint of our simulator (the MSAT, and the Marine funded SAVT) is that it doesn't respond to rapidly changing TTPs among aircrew so the aircraft profiles we have are the aircraft profiles we have. We've received funding to upgrade our system to be a classified system, and it's the first step towards NCTE. Second step is making the MSAT a program of record in order to continue the upgrades necessary to be able to link to the aircraft simulators at Cherry Point and Oceana. That request/white paper/proposal left our command and has made it up to the big wigs in DC. Last word I heard was that they've made it their #2 priority.

Synthetic training is here to stay gents.

Yuma's SAVT and Harrier sims are linked. We don't train together in them regularly (yet) but we do joint events during the course.

The modeling is pretty decent and they talk to each other fairly well in my experiences. It's a work in progress, but it's coming nonetheless.

We also have the capability to link to the Cherry Point sims (and I think the Miramar Hornet ones too), but I haven't seen that done yet. We do have linked simulator events in our T&R though. There are some bugs and the system is touchy from time to time, but it's fairly routine to conduct linked events.

 

[pourts]

I think this is the only aspect that can't get replaced. Everything else can be replicated with current technology with enough work and imagination. I would say that CNATRA is the LAST place that simulation intensive training should get any more intensive than it is because that's where you're learning to FLY. Most of the mission skills where you're learning to fight can get taught in the sim as long as they're not moved over 100%, and those involved really strive to get realistic training (ie linked with other platforms, actual JTACs in their own simulators, etc.).

I disagree.

Basically, any tactical training done in the sim beyond the most very basic RAG type stuff is pointless. Even the stuff that doesn't require you to "feel" the airplane move. I actually think they should go the super-cheap route, and instead of the big expensive trainers, they should just get more of the low-cost trainers (like what they bring around to show off the F-35), keep a couple normal trainers solely for instrument and NATOPS checks, and use the money saved for more flight time, parts, red-air support with EA (no, the F-5 doesn't cut it anymore) and dets to decent western air-to-ground ranges. The LGTR restrictions are getting quite absurd on the east coast.

The engineers mean well, but their attempts to make the sims "realistic" will never be so. Lets stop trying to make the sims more realistic. Lets understand what the sims are for: basic introductory stuff (and then basic section lead stuff, and basic div lead, etc). Then lets quit wasting money on overly "realistic" (not!) sims, get some cheaper ones that will serve the purpose, and use the saved money for better actual training.

 

[statesman]

Level D are the highest and what we use at the airlines. They are considered to accurate represent actual flight in the aircraft in all aspects. You can do all your training in the sim and be considered qualified by the FAA to go fly the plane.

That said there is a world of difference between various flavors of Level D sims. The Level D P-3C sim is not on the same level as the P-8A Level D. Granted the P-8 has the advantage of millions of hours of 737 sim time, 30 years worth of upgrades paid for by the private sector. The difference between the P-3 and the P-8 was so drastic I thought the P-8 was a level E sim. Which I found out from Hal doesn't even exist, but illustrates how much more realistic the newer trainers are.

 

[usmarinemike]

I disagree.

Basically, any tactical training done in the sim beyond the most very basic RAG type stuff is pointless. Even the stuff that doesn't require you to "feel" the airplane move.

How is it pointless? With proper networking/linking and steps to minimize sim-isms you can get very detailed, dynamic training. You're not handcuffed by range restrictions, threat emitters work and can shoot you down, the red situation can change, etc. We can so much because of range restrictions, we know where targets are, and nobody's getting shot down.

and use the money saved for more flight time, parts, red-air support with EA (no, the F-5 doesn't cut it anymore) and dets to decent western air-to-ground ranges. The LGTR restrictions are getting quite absurd on the east coast.

I want flight time as much as anybody else (especially to western ranges), and if sims didn't exist it would be a wonderful world. The problem is that real world constraints and restraints are as much of a hindrance as the sim limitations for some mission sets. We're even to a point where airframes are getting houred out. Using sims allows you to use the hours left in the jets not only for training in mission sets that the sim can't accurately represent (ACM, the boat, having a shitty wingman), but also for combat. The reality is that more synthetic training is coming, and if we don't lean into it, demand the best gear, and demand the most of ourselves then shame on us.

 

[xj220]

Level D are the highest and what we use at the airlines. They are considered to accurately represent actual flight in the aircraft in all aspects. You can do all your training in the sim and be considered qualified by the FAA to go fly the plane.

I knew Level Ds were regarded highly but didn't know you could do that much, but ours are "Level D Equivalent" from what I've been told. From what I understand, it means we're like the Level Ds but without the benefits (other than what we do already). I believe they have to be certified and recertified to be able to use them solely, however we don't have that.

 

[helolumpy]

Just to add fuel to the fire, bases are taking personnel cuts that are resulting in reduced hours that fields are open. This will drive the Navy towards more simulator time since a sim can run 24/7, but very few fields are still 24/7.

 

[scoolbubba]

Or we could just do closed field ops. Scratch that, my orm levels just exceeded mpra's safety window. Time to put my head back in the sand and hope the airplane breaks!