Transcript IMPLEMENTATION OF MOTION SIMULATION IN FLIGHT TRAINING

TUTORIAL
Spatial Disorientation and Optical Illusions – Threat and Challen
MOTION Simulation
in
Flighttraining?
Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Huhne
EUROPEAN FLIGHT TEST SAFETY WORKSHOP
November 10th-12th 2009
SAS Radisson, Vienna, Austria
Do we need
MOTION
in Flight SIMULATION?
Quality motion in training – a controversial
discussion
Arguments against motion:
 Motion does not transfer in training
 Large variation between how simulators feel
(wash-out filters/motion algorithms)
 Experienced pilots know how to fly and do not need motion
Arguments in favor of motion:
 Motion contributes positively to pilot‘s performance because
of faster vestibular perception (quick reaction skills)
 Simulators must represent reality as good as possible
 Vestibular-vision dynamics need vestibular stimulation
for activation
Headquater
Company Profile
ENGINEERING
SOFTWARE & FLIGHT SIMULATION
PROD. & SERVICES
FINANCE & ADMIN.
MARKETING & SALES
25
18
40
11
4
98
ACADEMICS
GRADUATES
UNDERGRADUATES
30%
20%
50%
100%
PRODUCT PORTFOLIO
Aeromedical Training
Flight Simulation

Human Centrifuge

FTD – PC-21

DESDEMONA

FTD – PC-7

AIRFOX® DISO

FTD – Alpha Jet

Hypobaric Chamber

AIRFOX® DISO

NIGHTFOX®

DESDEMONA

Ejection Seat Trainer

UWET

Anti-G Trainer
HUMAN CENTRIFUGE
(3 GENERATIONS)
+
Design Study of a Hypobaric Chamber
Scope of Training:
 Simulation of environmental conditions at high altitudes
 Simulation of rapid decompression
Interior of a Hypobaric Chamber
NIGHTFOX® INTEGRATED TRAINING
Training Philosophy
 Theoretical CBT incl. NV-Physiology
 Practical Training/Terrain Board
 Practical Training/ Simulator (DISO)
+
Increased Flight Safety
Ejection Seat Training System
(with SmartEject™ Technology)
Sequence of Bail Out
AMST AIRFOX® DISO
SPATIAL
DISORIENTATION
TRAINING
THE PRINCIPLE OF SPATIAL ORIENTATION
Vestibular
System
(10%)
(80%)
Proprioceptors
(10%)
Orientation
Sense
Visual
System
Vestibular System
What basics are important to remember?
 We feel accelerations only (rotatory/translational)!
 Steady rotation is felt like „no rotation“ after 15 sec.
(absence of visual cues, i.e. IMC)
 Abrupt reduction of steady g-forces >+2g to +1g
is felt like –g!
 Interdependencies vestibular sense and eyes
(vestibulo-ocular reflex)
 Vection Illusion (vision stimulates vestibular sense!)
Which arguments are correct?
Facts of vestibular-visual dynamics:
 A mismatch of vestibular and visual sensations may lead to SD
in real flight, in simulators it may lead to dizziness or motion sickness
 Novice-pilots elaborate their own mental „flight model“ by using
all sensory inputs (visual/vestibular/prorioceptive cues most import.)
 Experienced pilots can „feel“ vestibular sensations where are none
due to their firmly stored mental flight model
(s. also „Vection Illusion“)
Do we need
MOTION
in SIMULATION?
Effectiveness of Motion in SD-Training Verified
Goal of Scientific Study
MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)
The goal of the study was:
To analyze the Importance of Motion Cues for the
effectiveness of an SD-training program by a systematic
comparison between a motion based and a fixed
base training for private VFR-Pilots without instrument
rating.
Note: The training was performed on AIRFOX® DISO
Effectiveness of Motion in SD-Training Verified
Experimental Design
MOBADI Motion Based Disorientation
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)
PHASE I
PHASE II
PHASE III
Training, part II
MOTION ACTIVE
Test
MOTION ACTIVE
TG_noMo (N = 15) Instruction flight
Training Group no Training, part I
MOTION INACTIVE
Motion
Training, part II
MOTION INACTIVE
Test
MOTION ACTIVE
CG_Mo (N = 12)
Control Group
Motion
Control con., part II
MOTION ACTIVE
Test
MOTION ACTIVE
TG_Mo (N = 15)
Training Group
Motion
Instruction flight
Training, part I
MOTION ACTIVE
Instruction flight
Control con., part I
MOTION ACTIVE
Main Training/Check Flight Elements
MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)
1. Inadvertent flight into IMC
2. Visual Approach at variable width and slope of
Runway (visual illusion)
3. Take-off with pitch-up illusion (somatogravic)
4. Unusual-attitude recoveries
5. Spin recovery in IMC (somatogyral illusion)
Methods of Performance Assessment
MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)
 Performance
o Flight performance data
o Flight performance ratings
 Psychophysiological Data
 Psychological Data
Main Results
MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)
Performance rating
3,8
3,6
3,4
3,2
3,0
2,8
2,6
TG_Mo (15)
2,4
2,2
TG_noMo (15)
2,0
CG_Mo (12)
Test profiles
Effectiveness of Motion in SD-Training Verified
Conclusion
MOBADI MOtion BAsed DIsorientation
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2006/2007)
 Motion based SD-training results in significantly better
flight performance than fixed base training
 Quality motion transfers in the case of SD-training for
VFR-pilots
 No-motion training does not transfer in SD-training
 JAR-FCL gives credits for 5 FH in fixed base simulators
(FNPT) in basic flight training (might be questioned)
Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training?
Results of MOBADI and our own experience in SD/HPL Training
encouraged us to formulate following Thesis:
Thesis
 Motion is important for novice pilots for elaboration and
storage of individual flight model (procedural memory)
 Motion is important for flight maneuvres accompanied by
certain linear and/or angular accelerations
 Motion is indispensable for SD and HPL Training
 Motion in basic flight training might transfer
Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training?
The idea was developed to train ab-initio student pilots
in hovering a helicopter and compare their „simulator“
performance with their „real helicopter“ performance. (Hovering
is one of the most demanding basic flight maneuvres in terms of
required coordinated inputs of cyclic stick, pedals and collective).
Discussions with training experts resultet in as controversial
statements as the present discussions about quality motion
in flight simulators.
There was no way but try it!
Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training?
Objectives
HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)
The main objective of HEMOT is to evaluate and identify the
degree of transfer of training from motion based (full yaw)
hover training into real helicopter hovering.
As it was not the objective to demonstrate that anybody can
learn to hover a helicopter by AIRFOX® DISO training, all
candidates received the same 7 training missions plus
checkflight regardless of their performance developed
in the simulator
Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training?
Experimental Design
HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)
Sim Training
AIRFOX® DISO
Sim Check Flt.
AIRFOX® DISO
HELI Familiariz. HELI Check Flt.
Jetranger
Jetranger
Standard
Group
(N = 12)
7 Missions à 45
min.
Hover
Checkflight
45 min.
Familiarization
40 min.
Hover
Checkflight
20 min.
HPL-Group
(N = 12)
7 Missions à 45
min.
incl. HPL
elements
Hover
Checkflight
45 min.
Familiarization
40 min.
Hover
Checkflight
20 min.
Methods of Performance Assessment
HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)
 Performance
o Flight performance data
(objective)
o Flight performance IP-ratings
(subjective)
o Video Monitoring
 Psychophysiological Data
 Psychological Data
HEMOT Video Monitoring
Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training
Preliminary Results (Subjective IP-Ratings)
HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)
4.00
3.50
IP-Rating
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Candidate No.
Helicopter
Run 2
Simulator
M-8 (Check)
Effectiveness of Motion in Hover Training
Preliminary Results
HEMOT HElicopter MOTion based hover training
(Cooperation Prof. Kallus, KFU and AMST, 2008/2009)
 Individual performance reached in simulator training
very well reflected in real heli „check flights“
 Over 80% of candidates performed better than fair (> 2,5)
 Only 8,3% of candidates performed poor (< 1,5)
 No significance between Standard and HPL-Group
Motion Transfers in Basic Flight Training
Conclusions for Basic Flight Training in Simulator
(type independent)
 Quality motion transfers in basic flight training (heli/fixed w.)
(6 DoF plus full yaw)
 Motion indispensable for implementation of
HPL and SD-elements
 Motion based basic/recurrent flight training
increases flight safety
 Wx. and traffic independent cost effective training
 Basic training in fixed base simulators questioned
Motion Transfers in Basic Flight Training
Conclusions for Basic Flight Training in Simulator
(type independent)
 Quality motion dependent on training tasks/goals
(6 dof/full yaw)
 Quality motion dependent on student/pilot skill
(individual mental model)
 HPL/SD elements may be embedded into basic
flight missions in motion simulators
 HPL/SD elements cannot be trained in real flight
(lack of environmental conditions or too dangerous)
Motion Transfers in Basic Flight Training
What to do now?
 Development of new class motion based part task trainers
(PTT) (high fidelity motion, generic cockpit, generic flight performance)
 PTTs represent class of a/c or helicopter
 Training Tasks:
o Initial and recurrent basic flight training (VFR/IFR)
o
o
o
o
HPL/SD training including upset-recoveries and spins
Special heli effects (white out, brown out, watering, moving pads)
Night vision goggles training (NVT)
Hypoxia training (simulation of high cabin altitudes)
 Convince regulators to certify PTTs and grant credits
Many thanks for listening!
Questions?
BE AWARE OF!