Simulation: A Revolution in Flight Training


Frasca FTD By Robert Ross

The nation's leading aviation university is taking some of the air out of its flight-training program. A new curriculum developed by Embry-Riddle shifts much of the school's airborne instruction to the ground, using flight simulators that train pilots better, faster, and at a lower cost.

The decision by the university, which educates one of every four professional pilots in the nation, could revolutionize flight training.

Few changes in 100 years
Pilot training has changed little since the advent of human-powered flight one century ago. Students start on the ground, where they study aerodynamics, navigation, and weather. Next, they take to the air with an instructor, learning to manipulate the aircraft through the entire flight process, from takeoff to landing, flying the concepts they've learned on the ground. When they have gained enough skill flying with an instructor, students are allowed to fly solo.

After getting a private pilot license, those who hope to fly jet aircraft must achieve instrument, commercial, and multi-engine ratings. Each involves its own training period and time requirement.

Ever since it was founded in 1926, Embry-Riddle has followed this sequential training process. Using 157 training aircraft on its residential campuses in Daytona Beach, Fla., and Prescott, Ariz., the university's instructors teach flying to students studying aeronautical science. Required for those who wish to become professional pilots, the program has 2,810 students, the largest enrollment among the university's three-dozen degree programs.

Embry-Riddle bases its flight training on a fairly rigid set of lesson plans stipulated by the Federal Aviation Administration in a regulation called FAR Part 141, which requires that at least 40 hours of training for the private pilot certificate be performed in the air, except for a meager five hours which can be performed in a simulator device.

'Can we do it better?'
Up to half of the time spent in an airplane for flight training has no educational value and is money wasted. "There's a certain amount of wasted travel time getting to and returning from the space in the air where the actual learning task is taking place," says Tim Brady, dean of the College of Aviation on the Daytona Beach campus.

Pilots with the major airlines do all of their training in full-motion Level D simulators. The Air Force, on the other hand, switched its basic flight training nine years ago to flight-training devices (FTDs) that don't use motion. "They felt that they don't need it. The Level Ds can't simulate G-forces," says Randy Johnson, chairman of aeronautical science in Prescott.

The university began to look for ways to improve its flight training soon after Brady arrived in 1998.

Richard Theokas, director of flight training at the Daytona Beach campus, recalls a conversation in the Atlanta airport with Brady and Mike Wiggins, professor of aeronautical science, as they waited for a flight back to Daytona Beach in October 2000. Theokas recalls: "We asked ourselves, 'Why do we deliver flight training the way we do, and can we do it better or differently?' "

Part of the answer, they decided, was to use more simulation to teach flying. Last summer, Embry-Riddle took delivery of four flight-training devices that simulate the Cessna 172 - the first of 16 full-size FTDs for the campuses in Daytona Beach and Prescott, Ariz. A pair of Piper Seminole multi-engine airplanes and a Canadair regional jet was added this spring.

Better, faster training at less cost
The use of simulators to replace much of the airborne training has the potential to produce better-trained pilots in less time and at lower costs, says Tom Connolly, associate dean of aviation at the Daytona Beach campus.

Quality and safety: FTDs enable students to learn more about aircraft performance and aerodynamics earlier in their career, without any risk to themselves, their instructors, or a plane.

"You can perform maneuvers you couldn't do safely in an actual airplane, such as stalling and letting it go into a spin," Brady says. "We're taking the airlines' training experience and bringing it to the world of ab initio training."

Time on task: In a typical one-hour flight lesson in an airplane, students spend 15 minutes taking off and climbing, 30 minutes training in the air, and 15 more minutes descending and landing. But because FTDs don't need to take off and land, students can eliminate half of a wasted hour and double the time they spend performing flight-training tasks.

Availability: The training devices are available for more hours than an airplane. An airplane can be used for flight training about eight hours a day, whereas an FTD is available 23 hours, rain or shine, with one hour for maintenance.

Cost: Even though each training device acquired by Embry-Riddle costs more than twice as much as a new Cessna 172, it has about five times the utility as the airplane for flight training purposes and costs less per hour to operate. One hour in an FTD costs one-third to half as much as an hour of training in an aircraft, according to Theokas.

Approval for a real-life experience
With data in their software from a real plane and a wrap-around, 220-degree visual panel, the devices give Embry-Riddle students the experience they would get flying an actual Cessna 172. Students can also practice maneuvers that aren't easily done in a plane, such as traffic-pattern operations, which involves learning to land amidst other air traffic.

Additionally, flight instructors can control different factors that affect flying conditions. "For example, we can make the weather get progressively worse," says Sean Jeralds, who directs flight training in Prescott. "We'll have students do the more hazardous activities that are safer to do in an FTD."

With 35 students in Daytona Beach and 35 in Prescott now using the training devices, Embry-Riddle is conducting a real-life test to find out how many hours it takes to master the necessary pilot skills.

In January, the FAA gave its top approval rating - Level 6 - to the Embry-Riddle simulators, making them the only flight-training devices in the nation qualified at such a high level. The approval clears the way for the university to fly by the rules of FAR Part 142 and do half of its training in the devices. "The long-term outcome is to reduce flight times even further," Jeralds says.

A change in flight-training rules
Brady says Embry-Riddle hopes to use its experience with the flight-training devices to make two changes in the way flight training is done.

"First, we want to get FAA approval to reduce the number of hours we have to spend training in an airplane," he says. Even though the FAA requires a minimum of 40 hours of flight time in the air to achieve a private pilot's license, Brady says it takes most students an average 60 hours to become proficient.

"We can take the 20 hours difference and apply them to simulator training," he suggests. "They'll still have 60 hours of training, but it will cost less and be more productive."

Based on its success blending airplane and simulation training, Embry-Riddle will be asking the FAA to approve its second goal - consolidating the training for the private, instrument, commercial, and multi-engine licenses into one seamless process.

"This would take less time, because we'd be using the simulators at the most optimal points during the training," Brady says. "We think we can do it in 180 hours - 100 in the Cessna 172 and Piper Seminole and 80 in the corresponding training devices."

Down the road, Brady says, "we want to replace our twin-engine Piper Seminole with a jet as soon as we find one with the right technology, affordability, and transferability to the jets our students will fly in their careers. Jet training time is much more valued in the industry."