Unloading the full flight simulator

1
Unloading the full flight simulator

• Asia Pacific Airline Training Symposium,
• Bangkok
• 26th February 2007

John Bent Manager Flight Training Centre Hong
Kong Dragon Airlines Ltd
2
INDUSTRY GROWTH IS SQUEEZING THE AIRLINE SYSTEM -
WE FACE THREATS

• Experienced instructors are now in short supply.
• Average pilot experience levels are in descent,
  and the human part of system risk is escalating.
• Human factors / threats and errors remain
  dominant factors in accidents and incidents.
• Mismatches still exist between current operations
  and long-established pilot training processes
• Full Flight Simulators are still applied to
  decades-long training formats and regulatory
  requirements.
• Traditionally scripted pilot training programmes
  still contain much historical content, not all of
  which may be relevant today.
• Airline costs must continue to reduce in ever
  more challenging business environments.
• TO MANAGE THESE THREATS, improved pilot
  training process is vital.

3
THE SEARCH FOR BETTER PROCESS

• MPL is just one outcome of the search for
  better practice / more relevant and efficient
  process.
• RAF pilot graduates in the 60s were trained for
  operational need.
• My only experience to Wings award was jet (in
  subsequent ops, there was no instinctive desire
  to apply rudder in turns, or correct power on
  the take off roll - no unlearning was needed).
• Civil jet ab-initio training? Not quite yet,
  but with the advent of VLJs possibly not so far
  away.
• Meanwhile, MPL addresses the airline
  operational need that today its a crew (not an
  individual) who operates a safe airline flight.
• Learning this from square one, in the most
  realistic (crew-based) environment, is now most
  important to safe operations MPL.
• Following the MPL theme, what about type rating
  training?
• Is current process completely relevant,
  focussed, and efficient?

4
Following the MPL theme

• IMPROVED PROCESS IN TYPE TRAINING

5
THE INSTRUCTORS ART Type Training

• The instructors art produces a more real world
  environment and more
  believing crews, through
• Manipulation of simulator for maximum realism
  (e.g. reduced visibility for generic airports,
  background weather effects).
• Realistic R/T, and random environmental
  inputs and events.
• Work-arounds to avoid obvious limitations
  of simulation (e.g. jet-upset / unusual
  attitude training? Adjustment of crew workload
  to manage peripheral awareness).
• BUT for the above you need experience, and the
  supply of experienced instructors is now
  inadequate to address current growth.
• So PROCESS MUST BE IMPROVED technology and
  device fidelity, course construction, and
  instructor delivery.

6
FFS, remarkable training tools, but high cost
7

• WITH SPARE FULL FLIGHT SIMULATOR (FFS)
  CAPACITY, WHY WOULD AN AIRLINE ADD PART-TASK
  TRAINERS?

8

• LOOKING BACK gt

9
PART-TASK TRAINING DEVICES

• For many decades, part-task trainers or not?
  was the subject of debate, with differing
  perspectives.
• View one The FFS, at the highest level of
  fidelity, is the most effective training tool.
  Any lower level devices generate less effective
  or even negative training and if we have
  enough FFS, why not use them?
• View two Lower level training devices are
  essential as early components of crew training
  programmes, and will save lots of s.
• In practice, both views prevailed, but the FFS
  remained the highest fidelity tool for training,
  and received the greatest regulatory support.
• The building block approach had few
  dissenters, but part-task trainer technology was
  not yet fully optimised to training objectives.

10
NEW FOOTPRINTS DEVICES

• As part-task trainer capabilities improved, and
  training objectives were more matched to
  capabilities, opinion began to change.
• Aircraft manufactures, training the broadest
  range of customer pilots, and needing to
  address new airliner technologies, had to find
  highly optimised training processes, while
  keeping the lid firmly on costs.
• Both major manufacturers arrived at similar
  conclusions, building footprints using a mix of
  training technologies.
• Boeing / Alteon is developing new training
  footprints for the B787, and Airbus has new
  footprints in service for A320/30/40/80 families.
  
• The new Airbus Pilot Training (APT) is proving
  itself, employing equipment tailoured to
  training objectives in the most holistic way.

11
BUT AGAIN, WHY NOT USE FFS IF YOU HAVE ONE?
From an experienced Airline Airbus APT
Instructor -

• The instructor attempting to teach basics in
  FFS is often confronted with a distracted
  trainee.
• Put the trainee pilot into an FFS, and what
  does he or she first want to do? - yes - fly
  it!
• Mesmerised by the real cockpit in the FFS, he
  or she thinks whats it like to handle?
• This distraction can create low arousal to
  learn flow patterns, FMS keying, EFIS / ECAM
  philosophy, and procedures, wasting valuable
  FFS time s on the basics.

12

• Ideally, improved footprints should embody
• The use of less expensive devices to free up
  FFS time
• Shorter higher impact courses (pilot production
  rates increased)
• More rational enjoyable content for
  instructor and trainee
• Higher quality output lower failure rates,
  provision for remedial
• Competency-based training objectives
• Comprehensive learning data base, rapidly
  accessible
• Fidelity with fleets in service reduced
  work-arounds
• Designed for continuous improvement

13
PRESENTATION CAVEATS

• The new Airbus Footprint, Airbus Pilot Training
  (APT), uses the Airbus Maintenance Flight
  Training Device (M/FTD), or other equivalents.
• However, this presentation aims at best practice
  in general terms is not a commercial for any
  company, and I dont get a commission!
• APT involves sound educational principles, when
  applied in similar ways elsewhere, may refer to
  VPT, CST, TFST, IPT, or other terms used for
  similar or equivalent devices.
• However, APT M/FTD are referred to frequently
  in this presentation, as an example of what can
  be achieved today.

14
M/FTD
15
PERCEIVED DISADVANTAGES OF APT-M/FTD

• Fixed content, fixed Airbus SOPs, not airline
  specific?
• More instructor-intensive (SFI time)?
• Operational Instructors (SFI) preferred for
  M/FTD phase?
• Flat screen, non-tactile, M/FTD?
• Doesnt fly AP only?
• Some answers from
  current APT experience gt

16
APT-M/FTD FIXED CONTENT?

• Can users modify APT media?
• YES, the Procedure Data Package (PDP) allows
  Power Point files to be easily modified by the
  user.
• New Power Point files should keep the same names
  in a specific directory, then Airbus transforms
  the Power Point files to the PDP format for
  integration into the M/FTD.
• Therefore airline-specific SOPs can be used.
• With certain maintenance contracts, updates are
  received automatically.

17
IS APT-M/FTD MORE INSTRUCTOR INTENSIVE?

• It depends on what you are doing now. Under
  APT2
• M/FTD is applied to 3 x 1hr (TKI) and 9 x 4hr
  SFI-facilitated.
• FFS is reduced to 7 x 4hrs.
• In most cases, when compared with airline
  footprints, the APT footprint reduces total
  instructor trainee days per standard type
  transition.

18
APT-M/FTD OPERATIONAL INSTRUCTORS FOR M/FTD
PHASE?

• YES, except for first 3 hours, M/FTD phase is
  predominantly SFI facilitated.
• APT is progressively blended via tutorial screens
  through technical to operational material, with
  early emphasis on procedures.
• GSIs (TKIs) are permitted by FAA in the US to
  instruct the full M/FTD phase, but they are
  usually ex-pilots.

19
M/FTD FLAT SCREENS NON-TACTILE?

• Yes, there was early resistance to this from many
  experienced instructors.
• Technically, the non-tactile flat screen concept
  enables multiple types / configurations to be
  simulated, all from the same hardware chassis.
• The trade off was between the finger finding the
  non-tactile flat-screen hot spot for the control
  and the value of early procedural learning.
• In practice, the latter added the highest
  training value, in providing a stronger
  foundation for the next phase of training a
  similar foundation concept to MPL.

20
M/FTD DOESNT FLY AP ONLY

• The M/FTD phase training objective is NOT to
  learn to fly the jet.
• The M/FTD, via a carefully designed tutorial,
  using a side-by-side CRM-friendly pilot learning
  setting, enables focussed learning in
• task sharing, scans, flow-patterns, checklists
  and procedures,
• - all PRIOR to entry into the FFS.
• The M/FTD supplies current accurate aircraft data
  to training.
• The M/FTD provides data on multiple types and
  variants from the same hardware chassis.
• Instant links / drop down boxes show answer to
  questions as they arise.

21

• APT APPLICATION (CBT M/FTD) gt

22

• CBT APPLICATION APT
  extract from introduction in Airbus FCTP (APT) gt

• Systems study is progressively introduced
  throughout the ground-school phase. Aircraft
  Systems are presented during the 3 groundschool
  days in the classroom.
• The remaining CBT for each system is studied
  before each M/FTD session, and the acquired
  knowledge reinforced through M/FTD.

23
M/FTD APPLICATION APT
extract from introduction in Airbus FCTP (APT) gt

• The training is fully integrated, which means
  that all the systems knowledge acquired in the
  CBT is reinforced ad evaluated in the M/FTD,
  using Airbus-standard SOPs.
• This training device (equipped with tutorial
  modes) allows trainees to learn the normal and
  abnormal operations, using task sharing and
  coordination, which save precious FFS time.
• Briefings and de-briefings are fully integrated
  into the tutorial mode.
• A debriefing will be carried out at M/FTD 5
  9, according to trainees performance.

24

• CRMTEM EMBEDDED IN APT2gt

25
TED
26

• COMPARISONS APT AIRLINE gt

27
COURSE COMPARISONS TYPICAL STANDARD TRANSITIONS
28

• M/FTD FFS RATIOS gt

29
APT - APPROXIMATE RATIOS M/FTD FFS
INCLUDING MAINTENANCE TRAINING

• TYPICAL MANUFACTURER TRAINING CENTRE
  (high volume of
  transition training)
• REQUIRES approx 2 M/FTDs per 1 FFS

• TYPICAL GENERIC AIRWAYS TRAINING CENTRE
  (lower volume
  of transition training)
• REQUIRES approx 1 M/FTD per 2 FFS

30

• OPPORTUNITY WITH M/FTD OR EQUIVALENT gt

31
QUANTIFIED OPPORTUNITY (GENERIC
AIRWAYS)

• Assuming that Generic Airways uses 2 same-type
  FFS for training, without other devices-
• As an expanding airline, Generic A/ways needs
  50 FFS for standard transitioning, eg. 6,500
  hrs (for both FFS)
• Approx 50 of this (3,250 hrs) could be
  transferred from FFS to single M/FTD in an
  APT-type course,
• Leaving 3,250 hrs FFS for further growth, plus
  M/FTD capacity for maintenance and other
  training, or -
• _at_ USD 400 / hr (market value) USD 1.3M pa. FFS
  revenue potential to offset M/FTD.

32

• QUALITY MEASUREMENT gt

33
QUALITY MEASUREMENT
Without data you are just another person with an
opinion

• A major objective of modern type rating training
  process, (JAA TRTO etc..) is to embed quality
  into the training system.
• Effective instruction is vital, but so are
  effective training tools, and process.
• As instructor experience becomes more thinly
  spread, tools and process must be enhanced.
• APT and similar design approaches, achieve
  enhanced quality through
• More precise task analysis instructional design
• Built-in measurement for continuous improvement
  (in APT case through trainee results /
  satisfaction indices, and instructor feedback).
• An inevitable bi-product is higher quality output
  in a shorter time-frame more productivity,
  safety, and -efficiency.

34
UNLOADING THE FFS TRAINEE INSTRUCTOR
PERSPECTIVES FROM APT

• An enjoyable course for trainee and
  instructor!
• Knowledge level reached on completion is
  higher than previous courses eg. output quality
  is higher.
• After M/FTD, trainees have sound procedural
  grounding before FFS are well prepared for FFS
  phase, and demonstrate ample spare capacity.

35

• SUMMARY gt

36
SUMMARY APT-M/FTD TYPE TRAINING

• Proven syllabus, working well the product of
  years of development.
• The building-block approach, using CBT, M/FTD,
  FFS, is effective.
• Delivered successfully to the broadest range of
  customer pilots.
• M/FTD-type tutorials - highly visual cross
  language barriers.
• M/FTD-type devices use current aircraft data,
  reducing work-arounds.
• Content is comprehensive (embedded CRM, PERF,
  LOFT, LV, EOS etc).
• Designed to be easily tailoured and adapted to
  airline needs.
• The FFS is UNLOADED, releasing FFS-time back to
  the operator (s).

RELEVANT, COMPREHENSIVE LEARNING HIGHER QUALITY
OUTPUT
37
(No Transcript)
38
TED

• BUT THERES STILL MORE TO DO gt

39
FFS environment- this?
40
UNIFORMS IN SIMULATION CREW FIDELITY
or this?
41
UNIFORMS GO WITH THE JOB A
PROFESSIONAL REALITY
42

• OTHER TRAINING ENHANCERS

• Video clips of correct procedures (a picture
  tells a thousand words)
• Simulator debrief systems (video, analyse,
  improve)
• Assessments in training (assess, improve, save
  s)
• Simulation tailoured to task (type of entrant
  and operation)
• Data analysis from simulation (more
  proactive safety culture).
• System feedback to simulation (let pilots see
  and learn form events).
• Simulation in the Safety Management Systems
• gtgtgtgtgtgtgt

43
ADDING SIMULATION TO SMS

DAILY HEALTH CHECKS THREAT ALERTS
SIGNIFICANT SYSTEM DEVIATIONS
OPERATIONAL HEALTH
TRAINING HEALTH
QAR FEEDBACK
SIMULATION TRAINEE TRENDS PROGRAMME
FAILURES ERROR REPETITIONS SOP NON-COMPLIANCE
BEHAVIOUR TRACKING TRAINEE
EXTENSIONS EQUIPMENT FAILURES TEST FAILURES
LOAS / LOSA / IOSA
TECHNICAL FAILURES
The System Health Check
MANUFACTURER ADS
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
INSTRUCTION
SELECTION
44
TO CONCLUDE FOR ADDED SAFETY DURING AIRLINE
GROWTH, WE NEED IMPROVED TRAINING PROCESS, SUCH
AS -

• Ab-Initio MPL
• Organisational TRTO / Training Quality
  Systems
• Type Training APT-type transitions
• Human factors More embedded TEM / CRM
• Recurrent More appropriate use of FFS
• Safety Management Connect to the Training
  System

45
For Type Training Unloading the valuable FFS
46
Thank you!
47
(No Transcript)