
Canadian pilots no longer have to fly real aircraft to keep valid licences - drittich
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-pilots-no-longer-have-to-fly-real-aircraft-to-keep-valid-licences/article32204718/
======
dleslie
I built one of these certified simulators; they are not what you will find at
most people's desks. We built a cave with a large number of 120Hz 1080
projectors custom modified to sync in tandem to shutter glasses, and used a
medical device for sub-millimeter head position tracking. The cockpit was an
actual, decommissioned helicopter with working interfaces.

It was an incredible experience to build and operate; I never did stick around
for the final install, which was going to mount the cockpit onto a platform
capable of rotating and lifting in a variety of crazy ways.

~~~
annerajb
What is the purpose of the head position tracking? Did the aircraft you build
the simulator for has some sort of advanced HUD that always shows correctly no
matter the position of the pilot head??

~~~
dleslie
So it would feel real; you could look out the side window, or shift your
weight to look around trees or to get a better view down the side of the
helicopter.

I work in VR now and honestly nothing comes close to the experience we built.

~~~
fit2rule
>I work in VR now and honestly nothing comes close to the experience we built.

This is an interesting statement, because in all the wide sphere of points
where VR can be applied, it seems to me that the only place of any 'validity'
or .. true social value .. (i.e. not gaming/entertainment) .. is in the realm
of training for high-performance/life-critical operator scenarios.

Which is not to say that these things can/can not be gamified - but perhaps
that the end result of such a stringent effort by society to apply VR
technology to training and simulation of otherwise-life-threatening
roles/responsibilities/duties is that it all becomes a bit of a game.

What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and "built
serious simulator system", in your opinion?

~~~
jdietrich
> in all the wide sphere of points where VR can be applied, it seems to me
> that the only place of any 'validity'... is in the realm of training for
> high-performance/life-critical operator scenarios.

We're already seeing socially important applications outside of training. VR
is being used as part of treatment for PTSD and phobia; it can provide a very
believable experience of a traumatic stimulus in a safe environment. VR may
prove to be a powerful tool for psychotherapists.

More broadly, I think we have underestimated the psychological significance of
presence. Users respond to convincing VR experiences in a totally different
way to other media. This difference seems to be relatively durable and does
not fully diminish when the novelty wears off. Pilots in simulators experience
real physiological stress, even when they are experienced simulator users.

How would the world change if most of us got our news through VR - if we felt
that we were stood in Mosul or Aleppo, flinching at every bang, reflexively
crouching down for safety?

>What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and
"built serious simulator system", in your opinion?

There's a vast difference between a $2000 consumer system and a $2,000,000
simulator. A headset can't approach the fidelity of a real cockpit with real
controls and instruments, mounted on a huge hydraulic motion rig. VR
technology is constantly advancing, but there will always be a gap between an
expensive single-purpose system and a cheap general-purpose system.

------
afarrell
It would be nice if we had either public driving simulators or classes that
you could use to improve your driving and response to erratic other drivers. I
suspect that the lack of this deliberate training is one reason why driving is
much more dangerous than flying. Back when I owned a car, it seemed like all
of the classes on driving marketed themselves as either:

1) A totally unchallenging formality that will satisfy the requirements for
keeping your license.

2) Training for police to use a car as tactically while being shot at.

There didn't seem to be any middle ground for people who just felt like they'd
like to reduce their chances of killing a cyclist.

I wonder if it would profitable to build an arcade machine and charge people
to play a more immersive version of Crazy Taxi, GTA, or some prohibition
bootlegger simulator.

~~~
sigstoat
Bridgestone's Winter Driving School comes to mind immediately,
[http://winterdrive.com/](http://winterdrive.com/)

Fundamentally, I think most drivers view driving as just a thing they do, and
give no thought to the possibility of improving. So having classes or
simulators isn't going to help, because they wouldn't take advantage of them.

~~~
userbinator
_So having classes or simulators isn 't going to help, because they wouldn't
take advantage of them._

...unless it becomes a requirement for a license.

------
mymuss
This article is factually incorrect. Here's some glaring examples:

> United States and European Union, which still compel pilots to meet
> stringent standards to keep their licences valid, including a requirement to
> actually fly a plane.

Not true, at least not in the US. According to 14 CFR 61.56 (i) "A flight
simulator or flight training device may be used to meet the flight review
requirements of this section"

> There is a whole host of skills you don’t exercise in a simulator

True, but the opposite is also true. I can think of number of scenarios that
can be practiced in a sim but cannot be safely or legally practiced in
aircraft. Example of such scenario: engine failure in instrument
meteorological conditions.

> If you had a heart issue, would you go and see a heart surgeon that hadn’t
> operated in five years

I wonder if Mr. McConnell is aware that every single line pilot who files B787
or A380 today did all their training for that airframe and passed the rating
test in a flight simulator.

The reality is all airline pilots train in flight sims these day. There is no
practical way of doing that in actual aircraft. If one can do all their
training and pass the license test in a sim why can't they do periodic flight
review in a sim?

------
raverbashing
Simulators are not the problem for renewal, they get increasingly better with
time.

The problem is relying on automation instead of real piloting skills

I trust much more a pilot practicing manual flying in a simulator than doing
real flying in "Children of Magenta" mode

~~~
tobych
For those like me who, though not a pilot, enjoy watching Aircrash
Investigation and similar programs, and finds the investigations and findings
inspiring/sobering/educational as a software engineer, and like me weren't
aware of the "Children of [the] Magenta" phrase, this article and audio piece
[1] looks a good place to start. The phrase was used in a 1997 presentation -
available publicly [2] - by American Airlines captain Warren Van Der Burgh,
who said that (quoting the article's summary of his words): "The industry has
turned pilots into “Children of the Magenta” who are too dependent on the
guiding magenta-colored lines on their screens." He makes his case with some
very funny lines, too. Quite the humorist: "I got stuff to worry about, don't
I. Heads up stuff. It's probably not a good time to be typing." [3]
immediately precedes his explanation of the phrase.

[1] [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-
magent...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-
automation-paradox-pt-1/)

[2] [https://youtu.be/pN41LvuSz10](https://youtu.be/pN41LvuSz10)

[3] [https://youtu.be/pN41LvuSz10?t=510](https://youtu.be/pN41LvuSz10?t=510)

~~~
ghaff
It's an area of ongoing research as well, e.g. the Humans and Autonomy Lab at
Duke. (Missy Cummings, who is the director of the lab, used to be a Navy
fighter pilot.)

I expect we'll hear a lot more on this topic. Assuming you're at all skeptical
about the timeframe for full automobile driving automation, it seems a
certainty that we'll have a (significant) period when stuff works most of the
time--until it doesn't. And, given that lots of people drive distracted today,
what's it going to look like when the car can drive down the highway most of
the time on its own?

------
trelliscoded
It seems to me that the #1 way to predict pilot performance in emergencies is
whether the pilot has encountered the emergency before and lived. If so,
running the pilot through the most scenarios possible in a given unit time
would seem to be a good strategy to train pilots, and simulators would
increase the rate of scenarios per unit time versus a real aircraft.

However, you can't get away from actually flying a plane. There's little
things you don't practice in the simulator, like making sure you have your
handheld VHF radio, checking for water in the fuel tanks, and how to balance
cargo, that you'll never learn in front of a computer screen.

If it's anything like network administration, I'd say something like 20% real
experience vs 80% simulated might be a good mix. People who favor just one or
the other lack performance under adverse circumstances compared to admins who
do both, I've noticed.

------
cm2187
I was under the impression that 95% of the time, the pilot sits in the cockpit
doing nothing, other that watching the autopilot by a clear sunny day. Whereas
in a simulator the pilot is busy practicing challenging environments.

I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether a pilot can do simulators
only but intuitively, an hour of simulator seems to be worth more than one
hour of real life flight.

~~~
adamfeldman
American B2 bomber pilots practice 14+ hour long-endurance missions in
simulators before they're ever allowed near a real ($2B+) aircraft

~~~
ghaff
I suspect though that knowing you're being tested in a simulator, even if it
is a boring long-endurance mission, could still affect how you think about it
and approach it.

------
jt2190
Ah politics. It appears that this story is really about getting more funding
for flight time for aviation inspectors.

From TFA:

> Many of Transport Canada’s aviation inspectors, some of whom are licensed
> pilots, are not able to keep their licences current because Conservative
> spending cuts imposed in 2011 curtailed their ability to fly government
> aircraft. He believes the department changed the rules to ensure federal
> aviation inspectors maintain the proper credentials.

> A CFPA survey of licensed aviation inspectors, conducted in April, found
> that about half have not been assigned flight training for more than a year
> and one in 10 has not been assigned to flight training for up to 10 years or
> more.

> “With the stroke of a pen, Transport Canada has devised a work-around so
> their own pilots comply with Canadian Aviation Regulations,” Mr. McConnell
> said. “Aviation inspectors who are pilots are becoming like traffic cops
> without a driver’s licence. This situation undermines public safety and
> inspectors’ credibility with the industry they are supposed to oversee.”

------
clarry
Is CAE a major player among flight sim companies? Because in that case,
there's clear economic incentive in making simulator training accepted.. first
in Canada, with the hope that other countries will follow. Big company will
get a good chance to export their product.

~~~
nas
Yes they are. For military and commercial aircraft.

------
drittich
Some relevant links:

[http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-
publications/9-LRA-e....](http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-
publications/9-LRA-e.pdf)

[http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/10/04/pilots-licence-
simulator-...](http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/10/04/pilots-licence-simulator-
fly-regulation-change/)

I would love it if a developer involved in Transport Canada approved simulator
software could comment.

------
wired8
My father is a flight instructor in New Zealand, he said simulator use there
is credited towards yearly flying hours.

The only difference I can see between a modern simulator and the real thing is
lack of consequence.

------
finid
Quoting Marc Garneau, the Transport Minister:

 _I am sure it has been done based on a serious look at what is important for
our pilots to do._

Yeah, except fly a real plane to maintain that pilot's license.

------
swingbridge
Simulators are great for training on emergency scenarios that can't easily or
safely be done in a real airplane, or practicing and learning new avionics or
systems but they shouldn't be a substitute for real flying experience. This is
a bad decision.

~~~
annerajb
As a pilot that is learning. Why can't a simulator recreate the real flying
experience? Especially on this fly by wire aircrafts?

~~~
drittich
Completely putting aside the question of the quality of the simulation of the
aircraft and physics involved, one possible reason is that simulations can
remove extreme emotions from the equation. The pilot _knows_ they won't die in
the simulator if they make an error. (This can be both a positive and negative
gain.)

To take it to the extreme, would you be willing to attempt landing a real 747
solo, having only ever flown using simulators?

~~~
venomsnake
I will be willing to do it. I won't be willing to be present in an aircraft
while someone elae does it. Not because I am a pilot - just I am ok with dying
from my own mistake.

