11-27-2007, 08:55 PM #1
Paper on PC-based simulation and learning released
As promised a while back... my paper titled Transference of PC-based simulation to aviation training: issues in learning is now released.
It is an academic paper so it is written in that style - but don't let that put you off . If you don't want to read the whole thing then just read the executive summary at the beginning.
It's a review/comparison of other research, papers and journals and what they have to say on the topic - together with some insights on learning design, and recommendations for improvements to aviation training. I plan to submit smaller papers (taken from this one) to aviation training / learning-design journals etc. later on.
Thanks to everyone from this community who assisted me earlier on in this project.Nic D'Alessandro
737NG builder (Hobart, Australia)
11-27-2007, 09:39 PM #2
- Join Date
- May 2006
Excellent reading! I have always enjoyed the Koonce and Bramble articles from times past.
11-27-2007, 11:11 PM #3
That was an excellent paper. I thoroughly enjoyed reading that.
I have a (not current) commercial certificate and instrument rating, but never used PC-based simulation to augment or practice any training. I never owned a computer back then, and computers and FS were not sophisticated enough to even consider using them that long ago.
I started simming in the late 90's, though my first FS experience was in the early 80's on a 286 while in the Air Force on a friend's computer. It didn't really interest me that much because it was not real enough.
Much time has passed since then and I now find myself at 45 years old and too old to continue my training towards my instructor and ATP ratings without enough time left over to be hired by nearly any company before manditory retirement age.
I decided to build a simulator of the only aircraft I really ever wanted to fly for a living.
I have studied this aircraft with every available document I own, can find on the internet, buy, beg, or borrow. I've talked to numerous 727 pilots, mostly past, since I don't know any Fed-Ex or UPS guys currently flying the type. In many cases, I've known more about the aircraft than the pilots flying it, but not maybe more than the engineer.
I use the performance charts based on US Air's POH for the -15 varient of the -200 and try and fly it by the numbers on each and every flight. I analyse flights through the replay feature in FS from both inside and outside the cockpit. Was I at Bug+5, 10, was the pitch trim set for the correct approach speed? Was the weight calculated correctly for the flap schedule I used during the approach and departure? Was my fuel burn correctly computed? And 100 other questions and doubts.
My point of this lengthy dissertation is:
Have I learned enough, and do I have have enough experience in smaller aircraft with the theory of flight, visual que's, spatial orientation, instrument training & navigation, and just plain seat-of-the-pants flying in the real world to do well in a Level-D 727 simulator or a real 727 after logging nearly 800 hours in a PC-based 727?
I'd like to think so, and would give plenty to find out, but I don't think that chance will ever come. I would sure like to test those skills learned on a PC-based simulator.
Thanks for the read and the reflection.Boeing Skunk Works
Remember...140, 250, and REALLY FAST!
We don't need no stinkin' ETOPS!
Powered by FS9 & BOEING
11-28-2007, 08:43 AM #4
Nic, absolutely fantastic paper!!!!!! and excellent writing skills, much to be desired
I enjoyed reading, what my thoughts has been telling me all along, nice to see someone else has the same outlook of how the PC is playing a part in learning to become a pilot.
Thanks for sharing your wonderful work
11-28-2007, 11:42 AM #5
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- 20 m N of RWY36R LEMD
Thank you for a well thought through and well written paper.
I really hope this can add to the debate regarding the role of FTDs in training, and our role as amateur enthusiasts in the hobby.
I think it clarifies very well the use of this type of device in ATP or PPL training, versus its down side of personal based instruction, where we tend to reinforce our own bad habits.
I am interested in pursuing the ability of our type of full scale sims in training for CRM or procedure skills, which can be easily translated to a reduction of expensive "Level D" simulator time for ATP pilots and their employers.
I am sure you have experienced the increase in "PF" workload in a full scale sim, compared to the desktop - an important learning curve, in my view, in improving your understanding of the pressures realized by a real pilot.
Is there work being undertaken by CASA to evaluate the value of these FTD's, compared with the "traditional" view expressed by the FAA and JAA?
One of the problems I believe is the wide spectrum taken by the FAA to FTD specification (Spillner 2007), which do not clearly define the difference between a fully enclosed, type specific, FTD, and a desktop CDU procedure trainer.
Anyway, as I'll never be a qualified ATP, I can generally keep my bad habits to myself,
But interesting reading.Paul
Project ERJ 145
11-28-2007, 07:38 PM #6
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Colorado Springs, CO USA
Alot of good information to keep the brain cells flowing...Well Done!
Now that you are "Published" you have become an "Expert" in the subject matter.Rodney -
Real 727-200 pit
Last Flown as N392PA
By spitfire9 in forum CNC DiscussionReplies: 7Last Post: 03-07-2010, 11:38 AM
By Crescent in forum Cockpit Software: MiscellaneousReplies: 5Last Post: 12-13-2008, 08:35 AM
By mwcovey in forum My Cockpit UpdateReplies: 0Last Post: 09-26-2007, 11:57 PM
By marius in forum General Builder Questions All Aircraft TypesReplies: 13Last Post: 08-20-2007, 04:40 PM
By NicD in forum General Builder Questions All Aircraft TypesReplies: 2Last Post: 04-19-2007, 08:13 PM