Is High Fidelity Flight Simulation Necessary for Airline Pilot Training Essay Example

of cost and training effectiveness specific to the particular program can best be conducted.

This process forms part of the cost benefit phase of the training needs where the issues of state of the art fidelity can be addressed. The scope of technology applied to all aspects of a training solution needs to be matched to the training need. For simulation this includes both the trainings objectives and the enabling objectives assigned to the simulator, as well as the level of fidelity needed to achieve them.One must be aware of the possibility of negative training with a device that may be too complicated, even if the budget allows. Could it be that high fidelity equipment is not required for successful airline pilot training? Fidelity A vital element of simulation effectiveness is the level of fidelity achieved through the simulation. Before discussing the importance of high fidelity for training simulations it is necessary to clarify what is actually meant by the term “fidelity”.

Fidelity, as defined for this paper, is the degree of similarity between the training situation and the operational situation being simulated.This definition can be approached from a number of perspectives.

The Royal Navy has grouped fidelity under these three types (Bresee & Wagner, 1993):

• Physical – spatial, tactile and appearance
• Functional – format, content and response
• Environmental – sound, motion and ambience

Arguments exist regarding the suitability of placing high fidelity paraphernalia in each of these areas. Therefore, each type should be considered separately when it comes to defining the requirements for a training simulator.

It is not necessarily the case that the same level of fidelity is required across the board.The levels of fidelity required can

be qualified by allocating scores to the three facets listed for each of the three types (Bresee & Wagner, 1993). Although this goes some distance toward defining the various levels of fidelity required, it remains an area that is very difficult to completely compartmentalize in airline pilot training. Of the three types of fidelity grouped above, the least favorite in terms of high fidelity spending on simulation seems to be environmental (Andrews, Carroll, & Bell, 1994). This may be due to past studies that have deemed sound, motion, and communication fidelity a white elephant.

By that it is meant that any spending in these areas is very difficult to justify. The remaining two characteristics however, are at the center of attention in recent investigations into simulation (Macfarlane, 1997). First of these is the notion of physical fidelity, which describes the visual, kinesthetic and spatial similarities between the simulated and the genuine. The other is that of functional fidelity, which refers to the extent of accuracy in system operation (National Center for Simulation, 2007).These two focal points of research and development have resulted in a large emphasis being placed on the equipment and technology used in the support of simulator training. There are other elements of simulation fidelity that have been much less of an impact on research.

Two of those are; psychological fidelity, which refers to the degree of perceived realism, and task fidelity, defined as the degree to which a simulation is able to recreate the actual parameters of the operational mission (Hays & Singer, 1989).While task fidelity in particular stresses the importance of creating operationally realistic simulations, it is frequently associated with the physical and

functional fidelity groups. This has lead to an overemphasis on technological advancement to enhance simulation based training (Francis & Heybroek, 1992). In turn, this focus creates a lack of emphasis on the role of recreating authentic operational scenarios which is the baseline for training airline pilots.

All this leads into another important aspect of simulation fidelity; Instructional Systems Design (ISD). ISD is definitively linked to training effectiveness and is relative to the way in which simulator based training is designed for the target audience. Recently there has been considerable research which suggests that there is not a straightforward relationship between the increased realism of high fidelity simulation and any significant enhancement in training effectiveness (National Center for Simulation, 2007).In fact, the research actually shows that increases in both efficiency and transfer of training do occur through the careful process of ISD, and in particular the design of simulation based scenarios that are responsive to the real operational needs of the target learner. These research results provide the first facet that high fidelity simulation is not necessarily required for airline pilot training. Operational FidelityWithin the commercial aviation setting, considerable criticism has been directed at the current forms of simulator-based training for their singular focus on the technical skill development of flight crew in the operation of complex aircraft systems (Macfarlane, 1997).

These criticisms do not suggest that there should be any decrease in the levels of technical skill development, but rather that the current forms of training do not sufficiently develop the non-technical skills necessary for enhanced operational performance in an increasingly complex operating environment.Specifically, the current lack of true integration between the development of technical and non-technical

skills has been highlighted as a major deficiency in current approaches to flight crew training (Francis & Heybroek, 1992). For instance, workload prioritization, increased situation awareness, crew coordination, and decision making in time critical situations are all examples of crucial non-technical skills which must be developed by pilots to ensure ongoing operational safety.Therefore, a need exists to establish mechanisms for ISD that ensure the authenticity of simulator-based training scenarios. This approach to enhancing simulator-based training can be termed operational fidelity (National Center for Simulation, 2007), and involves the creation of simulator-based line pilot training that equips personnel with a variety of technical and non-technical skills for operational performance. Although many ISD approaches provide a robust empirical method for the detailed analysis of system operation, they not provide sufficient information to a training rganization about the complex contextual factors that influence everyday operational performance.

It has been acknowledged that these forms of task analysis have the tendency to provide de-contextualized forms of information regarding effective performance (NASA Ames Research Center, 2007). This information can be extremely distant from the operational environment. Therefore, these forms of task analysis only reinforce today’s emphasis on functional fidelity and offer instructional designers little information about everyday operational factors that influence pilot performance.While increased operational fidelity does depend on the development of operationally relevant training scenarios (National Center for Simulation, 2007), the instructional benefits arise from the specific instructional guidance crews receive during simulator-based training and not from any increase in simulation fidelity. This conclusion provides the second facet that high fidelity simulation is not necessarily required for airline pilot training.

Negative Training The argument that anything but the highest level of fidelity

will provide “negative training” can be very seductive.While it is crucial that airline flight training simulators do not provide negative training; at the same time it is not required that these simulators obtain Zen-like fidelity (Lintern & Koonce, 1992). To achieve this balance it is necessary to define negative training in order to avoid it. Negative training can be described as a process in which knowledge, skill, and attitude are changed so that when presented with the real task a student who is following what was taught would carry out the process incorrectly or in a dangerous manner (Lintern & Koonce, 1992).

This definition shows a clear link between training and the actual performance of the task rather than just comparing the training subject matter with the real equipment. The subtlety here is that research in this area acknowledges the fact that training focuses the pilot’s mind on specific aspects of the entire system in use (Longridge, Burki-Cohen, Go, & Kendra, 2001). Any aspect of the system outside that focus does not impact the quality of the training. Furthermore it recognizes that it is all right to expect the student to adapt the simulation to the actuality of the real task at hand (Longridge et al. 2001). In other words, the research acknowledges that practical training is aimed at a point along the spectrum between “on the job training” and the age old concept of “monkey-see monkey-do”.

This understanding is another element that leads to the conclusion that high fidelity simulation is not required for airline pilot training. Simulation Simulations are generally used for two different purposes. These objectives can be described as the Surrogate Experience and

System Verification (Hays, Jacobs, Prince, & Salas, 1992a). Surrogate ExperienceIn this case simulation is used to provide an experience that the audience is not expected to encounter for real. Typically this form of simulation would be used in entertainment systems. As far as high fidelity is concerned for this type of amusement ride simulation, the prime focus is on the Environmental aspects to stimulate the senses.

Alternately, focus may be on the Functional side if the simulation is for the PC market. System Verification This simulation is used to provide the audience with the facility to become fully familiar with the subject matter before encountering it for real.This could be either for the purpose of testing specific system functionality, as in design and development simulations, or for checking the system with the user in the loop as in mission rehearsal. The principal reason of such a simulation is to minimize the chance of surprises when the audience experiences the same situation for real. In this case the focus for fidelity is on the situation and its representation through the simulation to the user. There are some general concepts that must be taken into consideration when assessing training simulation fidelity needs.

The overriding principle will be to ensure that the simulator provides a positive training experience. It is important to keep in mind whether the particular area of functionality being considered affects the student’s interactions with the system. For example if a particular system is highly automated such that it’s functionality is hidden from the operator then the level of fidelity of that functionality can be compromised without affecting training effectiveness (Hays, Jacobs, Prince, & Salas, 1992b). When

designing training one must know the input standard and the desired output required of the students.

This is obvious when considering the syllabus but it also affects the levels of fidelity required for any simulators used within the training solution. For example if the pilots are experienced operators with a thorough understanding of a particular system it is not necessarily critical for that system to be modeled to a high level of fidelity (Longridge et al. , 2001). The experienced pilot will be able to take the generic responses of a lower fidelity system and translate it with their existing experience and knowledge. Simulators almost always exist as part of a complete training solution involving training media of all types.Although it is important that the training messages of the various media are kept consistent, it is here that explicitly targeted fidelity levels can be applied (Ross, 1989).

This implies that if one particular detailed area of functionality is covered in standard Computer Based Training for example, it may be possible to model it to a lower level of fidelity in any simulator. For the operators of systems the focus of training is much more on the interfaces between the user and the system and the affects of the environment on the use of that system.For this reason simulators for training operators can actually concentrate more on the cues provided by the system and environment rather than simulating the underlying functionality to any great depth (Royal Aeronautical Society, 2007). As has already been mentioned, the fidelity of the simulation needs to be relevant to the task that is going to be performed.

Simulators have come a long way since

they required large computers to perform the complex functional image generation calculations.It is now commonplace to have fairly high functional simulations available on desktop PCs. However, with the simulators moving into the classroom on PCs with mice, keyboards and monitors there is a question as to how the Physical and Environmental fidelity of such systems relates to the pilot (Longridge et al. , 2001). The introduction of Virtual Reality (VR) and the design of complex desk installations to ensure the accurate positioning of control column and throttle emulators are steps toward higher fidelity.

But both of these additions increase cost and complexity and it is debatable as to whether the training is actually enhanced by either (Hays et al. , 1992b). Although unsubstantiated at present due to inconclusive research, one can argue that simple familiarization with a cockpit layout, or position of switches, is actually learned as a series of relative locations from landmarks identified by the student (Bresee & Wagner, 1993). This process relies on the human’s ability to map conceptual information onto the real world.Introducing high fidelity to allow a pilot to view the cockpit as if they were sitting in the seat is, therefore, not necessary.

A static image with the landmarks of key displays and controls is enough for them to be able to locate any component once seated in the real system (Bresee & Wagner, 1993). Of course taking the training system as a whole, and considering the focus of the simulators, it could be argued that physical and environmental aspects of the training might be better addressed by other media and are, therefore, not relevant to the desktop simulator.Early on in

pilot training, when students are being introduced to the functionality of systems, interaction with a depiction of the system interface is desirable but under tight control and with limited free play (Andrews, Carroll, & Bell, 1994). In this case the fidelity of the simulation has to provide the cues necessary for the student to progress, but high fidelity representation outside this scope is not necessary.

In the later stages of pilot training the student is likely to have more freedom when deciding on what actions to take.The system will need to respond more accurately, though perhaps not completely, off the intended training path. In this case the pilot may pick up on secondary or tertiary responses from the system, those not on the critical path of the task being trained, and therefore system response should be of a higher fidelity (Andrews et al. , 1994). Results point toward the use of greater fidelity devices for this type of “free-play” pilot training, but not in the high fidelity range per say.

Although it varies with the philosophy of the training establishment, the key use for the simulator in training is to further the skills and develop the attitude, as opposed to the knowledge, of the trainee (Hays et al. , 1992a). In the initial stages of pilot training this is likely to be generic until a certain basic level of capability has been acquired. Training tends to take on a more specific nature, more analogous to mission rehearsal, as the trainee moves beyond the basics.In the first of these stages the generic nature suggests a lower level of fidelity is required though the focus for realistic representation will

tend to be on the Functional side (Swezey & Andrews, 2001).

As the training becomes more system specific the Physical representation becomes more critical. The Environmental fidelity may also come into play depending on the operational environment of the system and the operational tasks of the trainee group.Based on the above assessments, it can be seen that fidelity in the case of Surrogate Experience simulations is really a subjective matter and can be based on budget considerations and what the manufacturer believes they can sell. For the System Verification simulation, Functional fidelity is critical if it is going to meet its objectives (Swezey & Andrews, 2001). However the case for high fidelity in the airline pilot training simulation is far more varied and depends significantly on what its training purpose is.

More often than not, researchers found no direct link between high fidelity and improved simulation results. This affirmation by researchers provides another component toward conclusion that high fidelity simulation is not necessarily required for airline pilot training. Vision and Motion The perceived visual quality of an image depends on many characteristics including resolution, color, sharpness, brightness, contrast, and accuracy.Generally, the higher the resolution and the larger the image achieves more feelings of realism in the simulation user (Neuman, 1990, and Reeves, Detember, & Steuer, 1993). In addition, images that are more photorealistic, or have characteristics of actual photographs tend to provoke a higher sense in users then images that are obviously animated (Heeter, 1992).

Smaller images, however, may provide equal sensations of realism depending upon the field of view that they occupy. Lombard and Ditton (1997) assert that a large image at a large viewing distance (i.

. IMAX Theater) can result in the same sensation of reality as a small image at a small viewing distance (i. e. head mounted display).

Overall, this research has a similar conclusion; images should be as realistic as possible given the confines of the equipment. The degree of fidelity in a simulator is closely linked to training effectiveness. In general, it is assumed that transfer of training from a simulator to a real world task will be greater when the simulation is more realistic.The only exception to this rule is the use of platform motion (Burki-Cohen, Boothe, & Soja, 2000).

It would seem logical that a simulation with added motion would increase transfer of training from one piece of equipment to another. However, numerous studies have found that platform motion provides no added training benefit to simulator users (Martin, 1981). Many simulators and virtual reality devices use motion platforms to create sensations of acceleration, deceleration, and other gravitational forces.Hydraulic motion platforms are often found in sophisticated flight simulators to create a more realistic flight experience for users. Although it is often assumed that the body movement would contribute to a sense of presence (Groen, Hosman, & Dominicus, 2003), in actuality, little evidence has supported this claim (McCauley & Sharkey, 1992). Instead, moving platforms greatly increase the chance for simulator sickness, which is characterized by symptoms similar to motion sickness including nausea, dizziness, and spatial disorientation.

Moving based simulators are more likely to induce nausea then fixed platform simulators (Money, 1991). In addition, the combination of visually induced motion and mechanical motion may cause more severe symptoms (Casali & Frank, 1988). This is ironic because it is generally assumed

that adding motion increases realism. The research in both enhanced vision and motion yield further confirmation that high fidelity simulation is not necessarily required for airline pilot training.

Review of Relevant Literature Research by Andrews, Carroll and Bell (1994) specifically describes the advantages and disadvantages of advanced fidelity in simulation devices. While most of the advancements they discuss are dated, the points made extend to current technology in today’s simulation. Bresee and Wagner (1993) discuss the cognitive fidelity of simulation devices and make specific points regarding the human absorption rates of high fidelity simulation learning; specifically, is more better?The research delves into areas of pilot perception and acknowledgement during critical phases of simulation. They also discuss the “negative learning” possibilities with high fidelity devices. The topic of discussion in a paper by Longridge, Burki-Cohen, Go, and Kendra (2001) in the Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology deal with twin issues of training effectiveness and affordability of flight simulators for use by U.S. airlines.In that regard, two research areas are noted with potential for increased fidelity; platform motion and realistic radio communications. In their research on the training effectiveness of a fixed-base simulator with a wide field-of-view visual system compared to a like system having platform motion, the authors failed to find an operationally significant effect of motion using FAA qualified equipment. They inadvertently make a case for limiting high fidelity devices in flight training.

There is good background information in Simulation as an Instructional Procedure by Macfarlane (1997). In this reference he describes designing instruction for human factors training in aviation and their relationship to reality in simulation. When discussing high fidelity in simulator

design, one paper weighs in heavily with fantastic design information. Ross (1989) lays it all out in his paper An Evaluation of the Training Effectiveness of a Low Cost Computer Based Flight Simulator from the “Proceedings of the Workshop on Flight Instruction for the 1990’s”.Ross describes the use of low fidelity material where possible and how it provides similar, if not better, training.

Lintern and Koonce (1992) detail the sight aspects of fidelity in their paper Visual Augmentation and Scene Detail Effects in Training. From The International Journal of Aviation Psychology the authors describe in depth how the visual aspects of scene design, and how that is displayed to the student, affect the learning aspects of the instruction. R. T. Hays collaborates with several authors on several papers, all of which I extensively used in my research.Hays appears to have spent years researching high fidelity in simulators with his papers; Simulator Fidelity in Training Systems Design: Bridging the Gap Between Reality and Training, Flight Simulator Training Effectiveness: A Meta-analysis, and Requirements for Future Research in Flight Simulator Training: Guidance Based on a Meta-analytic Review.

His insight into simulator design as a teaching tool, what it can and can not do for you is excellent material. His material on high fidelity in simulation, and how to make the simulation experience more like reality was the cornerstone of this author’s paper. The research by J.G. Casali and L.H. Frank on visual disruption in simulators was very beneficial in determining the value of high fidelity visual effects in simulators. While trying to relate this material to airline flight crews, the article by Francis and Heybroek provided a vital link between

airline crews and flight simulation. This was one of only a few papers that could be found specific to airline training.

Several websites were discovered that contain pertinent data to the on-going research by this author. These websites do not contain specific articles per se, but provide a wide-sweeping smorgasbord of valuable information.Those websites are listed in the reference section of this paper. Conclusion This paper has provided various exemplars of airline pilot training that, while where it is possible to produce training simulations of high fidelity, it is not necessarily the best solution.

Dismissing high fidelity solutions for training may be obvious where monetary constraints exist, but the well documented arguments put forth in this paper can quite possibly rule out increased fidelity in areas such as; operational fidelity and simulation vision and motion.Contention in these areas for airline pilot training reveal that increased training effectiveness can occur without increased fidelity. In each of these cases the author found supporting evidence that high fidelity simulation was not required for successful airline pilot training. Outline An outline is provided in Appendix A.

It covers the design and distribution of the associated Simulation Research Topic (SRT) paper. The outline is an abbreviated picture of the pieces and parts including the order in which they will appear.It contains the most logical flow of information and, using the subtopics created, the best order for the information to be in. The outline was developed as part of the SRT paper to provide a path leading toward this Simulation Research Paper (SRP). The outline was modified from the SRT to better fit the final draft of the SRP and provide the ultimate destination

for this author; a solid A on the SRP.

Flowchart A flowchart is provided as Appendix B. It conveys the step by step process of the overall design and development phases of the SRT/SRP papers.Each block is a significant step in achieving the final paper, and each has an individual arrow leading to the next logical block. Where a determination was required, a decision block was used having YES and NO arrows leading to further appropriate blocks.

As the process flows through the diagram, certain items may need to be repeated until a YES answer can be obtained. The large circular area is where the main activity of SRT/SRP development occurs. Inside this step are several blocks which facilitate the development of the material.Here is also where the outline is established and the paper is then written, rewritten, and rewritten again until a rough draft is created. After being checked for APA style and a final polishing of content, the SRT/SRP is ready for submittal.

References

1. Andrews, D. H. , Carroll, L. A. , & Bell, H. H. (1994).
2. The future of selective fidelity in training devices. Proceedings of the 1994
3. Interservice/lndustry Training Systems and Education Conference, 3-12.Bresee, J. S. & Wagner, W. W.(1993).
4. Cognitive fidelity and training device design. Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on Part Task Trainers, 16. -16. 6. Burki-Cohen, J., Boothe, E. , and Soja, N. (2000).
5. Simulator fidelity – The effect of platform motion. Proceedings of the International Conference Flight Simulation - The Next Decade, 23.1-23. 7. London, UK: Royal Aeronautical Society. Casali, J. G. & Frank, L.H. (1988).
6. Manifestation of visual/vestibular disruption in simulators: Severity and empirical measurement of symptomatology.
   

In Proceedings of the Advisory Groups for Aerospace Research and Development, Motion Cues in Flight Simulator and Simulator Induced Sickness (422-433). Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France.Francis, S. C. and Heybroek, R. P. (1992).

R. (1997).