FA Mag: Do you see a downside to using desktop computer flight sims as an adjunct to actual flight training?

Pat Duncan: Yes! If such programs are not carefully and realistically written and structured to truly and accurately represent the actual systems, procedures, operational profile and limitations of the represented aircraft and airports used, then a person can be totally misled and possibly develop some very bad initial attitudes and habits -- which could add to the person's (and their CFI's) training costs and frustration levels. Potential pilots need to be made thoroughly aware of the difference between an entertainment sim and one that has actual indoctrination or training value.

FA Mag: If you were consulting with a software developer on a new computer flight simulator, what features would you put at the top of your 'must-have' list? Or, put another way: what would you most like to see in future flight sims?

Pat Duncan: If you are referring to a realistic and usable training sim program, some of the truly valuable functions would be:

1. Numero Uno: GOOD-USABLE operational procedure/help information to enable a new user (to both the program and the aircraft) or an expert to learn and use the program without unending frustration. I have had the second version of MS Flight Simulator since it first surfaced. Its function was interesting and fun, and the instructions were not too bad. Then came Flight Simulator 98. It sounded great, plus it had a big iron included. Can't wait. Well, I am a pretty patient person but the frustration with the instruction data and trying to learn and use 98 is the biggest single disappointment of any software I have ever bought. I called MS twice to ask for help and voice my displeasure at the documentation; never a return call. So 98 is just sitting here taking up disk space.
2. Good technical on-line support for the program.
3. With respect to program features: accurate and realistic aircraft control, panel and equipment visual presentations. If you're going to develop and use a sim for serious training, you better be technically accurate and realistic. Generic flight decks are OK for introductory or informational activities. But if a person is using the sim for serious training, you want to have controls and equipment placed and functioning as they are in the actual aircraft. Failure to do so will almost guarantee the start of bad habits, confusion in the cockpit and the potential for an accident or incident.
4. I strongly feel there is a need for good model-specific emergency procedure simulation modes with visual and audio responses that replicate actual A/C or system behavior for specific emergency scenarios. This mode should have at least basic, common pre-programmed emergency scenarios -- such as major engine vibration, wind-milling prop after engine failure, fuel starvation due to tank mismanagement, electrical system failure, etc. -- each of which would be programmed to randomly and unexpectedly be dumped on a pilot while he is flying a pre-selected flight scenario. Comprehensive, realistic emergency training in actual aircraft is difficult, expensive, often tough on equipment and sometimes dangerous. This type of sim program/mode could be quite useful in developing logic and response skills. Such a program could also incorporate basic system (fuel, electrical, prop, etc.) operational and familiarization information to use for indoc/briefing purposes. The Flight Review feature would be invaluable as a troubleshooting aid to determine why a pilot blew an emergency procedure. Lack of properly executed emergency procedures is responsible for many accidents and fatalities that were otherwise manageable if the emergency skills had been well honed. What better place to initially learn and practice them, than on a computer!
5. Definitely need comprehensive GPS simulation programs for SPECIFIC MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT! There are far too many pilots trying to learn GPS skills on an OJT basis while flying their A/C. This results in far too many in-flight distractions and too much time with their head down in the cockpit instead of rubbernecking for other A/C. A good generic GPS simulation program would be of informational benefit for a basic 'Welcome' indoctrination to GPS. However, a truly effective GPS training sim program would need to be developed for a specific manufacturer's equipment, panel layout and function. It seems like the only thing consistent amongst GPS equipment panel layout, fit and function is inconsistency. Therefore, use of a generic layout/function would be of little use beyond the indoc stage, and could actually prove detrimental when the pilot attempted to use equipment with different layouts and/or functions.

FA Mag: What do you think of the idea that instrument training gained using a retail product like Flight Simulator 2000 should be used towards Instrument Ratings throughout various aviation governing bodies across the world?

Pat Duncan: The only way I could see this concept safely and realistically accepted by aviation regulatory agencies (and insurance underwriters as well) is if the sim program had a sterile verification mode (similar to the tape module in a cockpit voice recorder or the data record module in a flight data recorder), whereby an instrument student could, when they feel they are ready, perform a pre-programmed lesson on the sim and the results of that lesson be indelibly and securely recorded for electronic transmission to a CFI or authorized training center for review and acceptance or rejection by training program management personnel. Such data could also be retained as individual proof of proficiency for FAA Check Airman or for use in analyzing general weaknesses or deviation trends with skills and/or training programs.

Then there is the question of problems associated with maintaining the program revised with all current communication, airport and NAV data. Such a program could be structured and modified to accommodate Instrument Flight Rules that vary amongst various countries. However, I feel that all regulatory agencies would insist that such a program provide a level of quality and propriety at least equal to conventional methods of instrument training currently used.

FA Mag: Aviation safety is a key factor for all aviation governing bodies throughout the world. It's generally accepted that North America, Western Europe and Australia are the safest regions to fly in. Why is that? Could widespread use and acceptance of retail flight simulators as part of a universal safety standards training program promote greater aviation safety?

Pat Duncan: I am of the opinion that the three geographic areas referenced above enjoy the highest ratio of safety due primarily to the fact that they all have conservative and highly effective regulatory systems which: 1) mandate certification and operation of the highest level of safe equipment, 2) require strict initial and recurrent certification of pilot airman, 3) Provide strict oversight of equipment and pilot activities and sanction penalties for rule infractions, and 4) all referenced areas utilize modern air traffic control systems. Most of the current free world's aviation regulatory agencies and systems have been patterned to a great extent after the original CAA and FAA -- which was created in 1958 -- to deal with jet age, modern G/A aircraft and the near total reliance on air travel as the prime mode of transportation in the U.S.

With respect to worldwide acceptance of retail flight simulators as a safety training aid, while many world countries have adopted many FAA concepts and criteria, there still remains a significant number of regulatory and operational differences amongst many countries. Therefore, it would appear to be a challenge to develop and maintain currency of a universally accepted simulation program standard that would include both commonalties and differences amongst all countries using mutual airspace access. However, one excellent use I can envision for a specialized sim would be an 'International Traveler' program that would contain specific VFR, IFR and operational aviation rules along with aviation port of entry/exit and customs regulations.

Such a program could work as follows: Say you decide to fly from the U.S. to Panama for a vacation/sightseeing trip. You could pre-program your route, type of A/C, flight modes (VFR, IFR, GPS, etc.) and any other pertinent data relative to the flight. The program would then display a pre-flight briefing on all regulatory and operational rules, flight services and other information relative to each country you will transverse. Then as you begin your sim flight over the designated routes, the program could display specific visual and/or audio insert reminders about navigation, communication, flight altitudes, restricted airspace or any other regulatory or safety function unique to that country and the area of flight. In essence, you could pre-fly your exact trip and pre-experience the disciplines, needs and pitfalls prior to actually venturing into the unknown. If you want to get real cute, the program could also have some built-in failure/emergency modes such as an inop navaid/communication facility or a primary airport underwater, volcanic obscuration, etc., which could help in pre-flight considerations for alternate airports fuel planning, search/rescue, survival equipment, and so forth.