Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T23:20:32.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flight simulation – viability versus liability issues of accuracy, data and validation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

J. M. Rolfe  and
B. P. Hampson
J. M. Rolfe
Affiliation:
Filled Roles Simulations, Hemingford Grey, UK
B. P. Hampson
Affiliation:
Training Technology International, Beaconsfield, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flight simulation has become an indispensable tool for aviation training. Important decisions relating to the acquisition and certification of aircrew proficiency are made based on performance in simulated flight conditions. Such a high dependency on simulation can invite questions about the validity of the assumptions on which their employment is founded. If these should be shown to be in any way deficient, those who consider that they have suffered as a result may seek redress. The paper considers the possibility that such conditions could arise and require those involved in the design, manufacture, regulation and operation of flight simulators to justify their decisions. The paper suggests that the culture should be one which acknowledges that simulation has its limitations and, consequently, exercises a duty of care for those who undertake training and assessment in flight simulators.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 107 , Issue 1076 , October 2003 , pp. 631 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Prophet, W., Caro, P.W. and Hall, R.E. Some current issues in the design of flight training devices. In 25th Anniversary Commemorative Technical J, 1971. US Naval Training Devices Center, Orlando, USA.Google Scholar
2. S., Hunter, Gundry, A.J. and Rolfe, J.M. Human factors topics in flight simulation: An annotated bibliography. Report No 656, 1977. Advisory group for aerospace research and development (AGARD).Google Scholar
3. Allerton, D.J. The case for flight simulation in general aviation. Aeronaut J, November 2002, 186, (1063), pp 607–618.Google Scholar
4. Shannon, R.E. Systems Simulation; the Art and Science, 1975. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
5. Rolfe, J.M. Saget 1990 – The proof of the pudding: the effectiveness of games and simulations. Simulations/games for learning, 1991, 21, (2), pp 99–117.Google Scholar
6. Farmer, E., Van Rooij, J., Riemersma, J., Jorna, P., and Moraal, P. Handbook of Simulator-Based Training, 1999. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, England, UK.Google Scholar
7. Rolfe, J.M. Twenty-Five Years of Flight Simulation. In, the Simulation ad Gaming Yearbook (Volume 4), 1996, Kogan Page, London.Google Scholar
8. Flight simulation: assessing the benefits and economics, 1989. RAeS, London.Google Scholar
9. Brown, M. A global airline: training at the speed of change in air crew training-time to take stock, 2001. RAeS, London.Google Scholar
10. Ray, P. Is todays flight simulator prepared for tomorrows requirements? In flight simulation – The next decade, 2000. RAeS London.Google Scholar
11. Pisanich, G. PC flight simulators: don’t call them games any more. In flight simulation – The Next Decade, 2000. RAeS London.Google Scholar
12. Insurance. Blame Culture. The Economist, 21 December 2002.Google Scholar