Syllabus validity on your Sim

[dins]

Has anyone performed an assessment of which lessons (or parts) can be taught by their sim?

I ask this because every sim design I have seen has different implementations,

I asessed my assessment into four categories . (Checked by other instructors)
1) Can be fully taught, no limitations
2) Can be partially taught due to limitations of the sim or Condor (e.g looking into turns , esp on final sinc elimited vertical FOV )
3) While it may be demonstrated, it cannot be taught due to work arounds in Sim
4) lesson not valid (E,g trimming due to lack of "linking/ feel" on our Sim

[rbp28668]

We did for the Cambridge simulator (not using Condor btw). As you say, each sim is different. From memory, I think the categories were basically the same. A couple of senior instructors went through the syllabus which eventually became an instructors guide.

[witor]

Has anyone performed an assessment of which lessons (or parts) can be taught by their sim?

this will depend not only on the software (Condor) but also on the hardware used in the sim. For example to demonstrate or feel the effect of trim a force feedback stick is required. Look out is difficult to perform on a flat screen but VR with mirroring would allow it and could even help the instructor to see what the student is actually looking at. Flight could be recorded and lookout later reviewed/discussed with the student.

So, assessment of which lessons could be done in the sim greatly depends on the hardware used in the sim.

[timbaeyens]

Lookout on a flat screen goes quite ok with Opentrack or similar. I wouldn't recommend anything less for a traing setup.

[Michael McKay (MJ)]

At the Gatineau Gliding Club in Canada, we are working on a syllabus for use with the sim. From what I've learned and used so far, I don't think there is a one-to-one connection with the flight syllabus and what I find works when instructing on the sim. The flight syllabus is chopped up to fit a 15 to 20 minute flight with a tow and circuit included. The time left for training is very limited, busy and full of distractions. In contrast, I can use the sim to setup the environmental conditions required to focus on a particular skill or judgement and do so without time constraints or distractions - this is hugely helpful. Here are my basic lessons learned and the "ideal" training scenario I'd like to put in place. Comments welcome.

* The student benefits from an intro-flight in the real plane. This gives them a mental picture of what a real flight feels like and helps them bridge the lack of fidelity of the sim.
* An actual cockpit isn't necessary. I'd rather sit beside the student and be able to point at the screen. The only thing that might make an actual cockpit work would be if the control columns were connected and the student could follow the instructors motions.
* Before actual flight training starts, the student can learn effects of controls, gentle and medium turns, straight flight, turn to a heading, and other basic exercises. These can be done in calm conditions and then with increasing levels of turbulence. This is all done without VR.
* Adding VR, we start lookout exercises with ghosts (7 to 10 other gliders over the field) and have the student practice turns in thermals while keeping a good lookout for the other aircraft.
* When the student can complete well coordinated medium turns in turbulent conditions, they are ready to start training behind the tow plane. This starts in calm conditions and ends with turbulence and turns on tow.
* When the student can reliably get to release height on tow in mildly turbulent conditions, we start training the final approach and use of spoilers. This starts in calm conditions and progresses to mild turbulence and cross wind conditions. By the end of this the student and reliably land the glider from the final turn.
* Then we look at circuit planning using the visible task cylinders to show the areas of the circuit and the yellow tape of the desired flight path. After the student can complete the circuit to landing, we turn off the graphical cylinders and practice until the student can reliably land an ideal circuit.
* We then look at ways of modifying the circuit in case of extra height or lack of height, wind and turbulence, or changes in active runways.

This all takes between 2 to 3 hours of sim training time. At the end of this, the student can takeoff on tow, fly around and land.

Then we start with the real aircraft. The student flies the flight with the instructor following very closely. The first flights concentrates on the things that the simulator can't teach well - the feel: feeling a thermal, slow flight, stalls, spins, steeper turns with G loads, side slips, spiral dives and real world conditions of wind and turbulence.

Once the piloting aspects have been taught in the air, we go back to the sim to look at the emergency procedures. Emergency release and rope breaks at all altitudes, from a wing drop on the initial roll, to straight ahead landings, to turns to other runways, alternate fields, 180 turns at sufficient altitude and abbreviated circuits. Landing circuits from low altitudes or adverse wind conditions. These elements can be taught safely in the sim to avoid dangerous situations in the air.

Back in the aircraft, the training carries on from there to hone skills and judgement in preparation for the first solo flight.

The goal of all this is to be closer to the Transport Canada required minimum of 6 hours of dual instruction before going solo rather than the 10 or 20 hours students currently spend. The sim training is not recognized so all skills have to be demonstrated in the actual aircraft and ultimately in the flight test prior to going solo. But I hope with good instructor involvement, we can reduce the time required to achieve the necessary standard of performance. I'm sure this will improve student engagement, reduce dropouts due to lack of progress after a year or two of training, and ultimately help us build our membership.

[nick979]

Has anyone performed an assessment of which lessons (or parts) can be taught by their sim?

I ask this because every sim design I have seen has different implementations,

I asessed my assessment into four categories . (Checked by other instructors)
1) Can be fully taught, no limitations
2) Can be partially taught due to limitations of the sim or Condor (e.g looking into turns , esp on final sinc elimited vertical FOV )
3) While it may be demonstrated, it cannot be taught due to work arounds in Sim
4) lesson not valid (E,g trimming due to lack of "linking/ feel" on our Sim

I think we can do most of it, but we fell at nearly the first hurdle - the scan cycle - look overhead to a blank ceiling is not something that any student is going to give credibility to! But I also think we should be careful with terminology... nothing can be TAUGHT on the sim because the sims are not approved by the authority and I doubt they ever will be. An exercise is only taught following satisfactory performance in the real aircraft. Of course the sim is a very useful precursor to that for many exercises, but it is a training aid and not a substitute for training in the aircraft. Pedantic perhaps, but it had to be said!