Vancouver 8 October 2008

1. Qualification of military flight simulatorsThe Dutch approachHans Jansen National Aerospace Laboratory NLRHerman Koolstra Military Aviation Authority MAA-NLD Vancouver 8 October 2008

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…..

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

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?

10. Task oriented 10

11. Subsystem oriented 11 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

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

13. Different fidelity

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

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

16. How does it look

17. How does it look 17

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.

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.

21. Example score

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

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

24. Question time