18 hours ago, LRBS said:

In the airline industry to qualify for a study level there are very specific items that are required to be achieved

Can you give us a link to that definition resp. what items are required? I would be very interested.

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

Can you give us a link to that definition resp. what items are required? I would be very interested.

Certification and approval for a CPT is a very complex stringent task and varies among authorities. Besides the fact that those guidelines are very slim to none available to the public, the airline industry is facing so many rules and interpretations. 

As an example, when we were approved for the  Aerowinx PSX they initially turned it down just for "2" minor discrepancies while a Level D simulator is questionable to be 90% accurate compared to the real thing.

I fully understand your curiosity, but as I mentioned, certain items are not available to the public and that's where I have to draw the line. I'm sure that you can understand this situation. As is with many companies that don't disclose sensitive information.

On 1/18/2023 at 5:45 AM, coastaldriver said:

Even the humble C172 keeps you humble

Not an X-Plane 12 user yet; is the startup procedure of the default 172 correct?

Franz here is a link to the FAA advisory circulars it is a start. 

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac

Then there is EASA (The Europeans) CAA (Brits) CASA (Aust) etc. There may be some differences but not in substance. They are all about the same. 

 

16 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Not an X-Plane 12 user yet; is the startup procedure of the default 172 correct?

Well it is just the same as the real thing yes!. Having accumulated about 400 hrs in the real C172 over the years (Not my favourite aeroplane by the way) it starts and flies like a C172. 

PreFlight check, fuel on both, mixture rich, throttle cracked, master and gen switch on, mags on both, fuel pump on, crank the starter - done! Engines that were worn or near overhaul could be cantankerous and take a few goes or a lot of cranking (not really modelled either) always handy to know what the starter motor limits were, they got pretty hot if turned a lot! The only thing that does not seem to be modelled in any sim models is hot starts in pistons. where the engines are red hot or very hot, then you have to crank with the mixture in lean (nearly cut off) and as it starts to turn slowly introduce fuel. Big twins were notoriously difficult to get going when they were really hot. Only Start difference was some big Lycomings (And  Pratt and Whitneys) always started in mixture cut off and as they cranked you introduced the mixture to full rich!

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by coastaldriver

11 minutes ago, coastaldriver said:

PreFlight check, fuel on both, mixture rich, throttle cracked, master and gen switch on, mags on both, fuel pump on, crank the starter - done

Ok thanks. But isn't the default 172 an R (or S) model? In that case the procedure is not correct.

Rinshot - not sure about the version of the C172. The S model got a fuel injected engine the others had a carburettor. Fuel injector engines start with mixture idle cut off increasing to full rich as you crank thats all. The reason is the fuel distribution control to the injectors needs the engine cranking to get fuel going the fuel pump is to provide pressure in the lines not to the engine thats all. Try the mixture lean see what happens. By the way injector engines would start using the standard technique if they were cold no problems!

I tried that technique of mixture lean the problem is that you need to find a way to turn the mag switch to start while at the same time pushing in the mixture.  They have modelled the spring loaded mag/start switch correctly! I could not do this with one mouse you do one or the other, tried a key command for engine crank but that did not work either. Somebody else may have an answer - works ok by the way for aircraft with a separate starter and magneto switch set up that way you can hit the starter switch which starts the cranking and then do the mixture. Somebody else may have an answer on how to do this!

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by coastaldriver

"Study-level" is boring, give me "test pilot level" instead:

• Sketches of the cockpit layout with roughly annotated instruments and controls
• Handwritten startup notes
• Some very sketchy perfomance figures that some engineer thought up during lunch break
• Twenty pages of dubious, but very confidently worded remarks about expected flight behavior from the aerodynamics department
• Set of very ambitious tasks to verify engineering assumptions to satisfy management and marketing
• Post-it warning about potential reliability issues because somebody mixed up some numbers during component specification

4 hours ago, Holdit said:

For a non-airliner, you don't even need an FMC, for example, the AirfoilLabs 172 is, I would say, as near as you're likely to get to a "Study-Level" treatment of that aircraft i.e. you can interact with the system items a real pilot interacts with, for the same reasons the real pilot does, and with the same results (or consequences for failing to do so). By that definition, the A2A J-3 Cub (P3D), which lacks even an alectrical system is still a study-level treatment of that aircraft.

FMC was just an example. Maybe even a bad one. 🙂
Yes, I own AFL C172NG, and it's brilliant, I also own A2A J-3 Cub, and you must even start the engines by playing with the prop. So, let's say that proper and authentic engine starting and good flight model can fall into study level "genre".

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

Certification and approval for a CPT is a very complex stringent task and varies among authorities. Besides the fact that those guidelines are very slim to none available to the public, the airline industry is facing so many rules and interpretations. 

As an example, when we were approved for the  Aerowinx PSX they initially turned it down just for "2" minor discrepancies while a Level D simulator is questionable to be 90% accurate compared to the real thing.

I fully understand your curiosity, but as I mentioned, certain items are not available to the public and that's where I have to draw the line. I'm sure that you can understand this situation. As is with many companies that don't disclose sensitive information.

Of course but are you sure the word « study-level » was used? Certification is something well defined but I have not seen any definition about « study-level » related to simulators.

Edited January 19, 20233 yr by Franz007

2 hours ago, coastaldriver said:

Franz here is a link to the FAA advisory circulars it is a start. 

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac

Then there is EASA (The Europeans) CAA (Brits) CASA (Aust) etc. There may be some differences but not in substance. They are all about the same. 

 

Thanks. I was specifically searching for the word « study-level ». I couldn’t find that word mentionned. I think that is what it is about in this discussion. But i suspect there isn’t any definition and everyone can interpret into it whatever he wants (as i wrote above already)

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Of course but are you sure the word « study-level » was used? Certification is something well defined but I have not seen any definition about « study-level » related to simulators.

Now if we try to find any precise definition or split hairs about study level I'm sure that this conversation will never end.

Think about it, we expect a simulator or other device to resemble accurately systems, flight models, and operations to the degree that is listed against the books. So, obviously, we study the books against a product, software, CPT, simulator, etc, and in the end, we arrive at a conclusion.

I'm afraid that for some of us in the airlines this "study level" is quite defined and not so much for others.

Franz - the term 'study level' is not used by regulatory authorities or the industry. I have only come across it in the flight simulator world (XP, P3D, MSFS). The key test used in the real world is 'accuracy' and fidelity - that is how well does the simulator replicate or is capable of performing compared to the real aircraft. I only used it in the initial post to say the XP is a high fidelity simulator that requires you to get to grips with the aeroplane you intend to fly, in that regard it requires study! Some of it quite in depth depends on the aeroplane!

Full motion simulators are rare in terms of coverage of a large number of aircraft types. At the heavy end of town once a type is retired the simulator is also retired! Some end up as procedural trainers for a class of aeroplane the rest just go to museums or get scrapped. People also seem to be unaware or forget that the first simulator really that was accepted was for IFR training and that was the venerable LINK trainer. Some of these persisted right up until probably only twenty years ago. Again even the link was procedural and to get the trainee used to instrument flight conditions you still went out in the real aeroplane and were properly trained and or tested. 

All type endorsement is at study level in other words you spend weeks if not a couple of months in ground school learning about the systems and procedures. Their may be desk top simulators to cover the systems, then there is the simulator itself again you go through the same process for hours and hours and it is all done in a simulated IFR environment. The whole way there are instructors monitoring you or implementing failures or scenarios. 

The other thing about real world simulation is that it is tied to type - that is they are used to lower the cost and risk of initial and recurrent flight training on a particular type. If you are a real world pilot you many only ever get several type endorsements in your flying career. I may have accumulated quite a few type endorsements on my license during my flight career but I can only be current on one type! I can tell you as a former Check and Training Captain I once had to cover 3 types (Turbines and two old pistons) - it just about drove me nuts, at one stage I was undergoing full testing by regulatory authorities every three to four weeks. As we used to say every check like that is an employment evaluation, bust the test, lose your job. 

I have never seen a simulator for a general aviation aircraft capable of being used for type endorsement and full currency and proficiency checking and training. When you consider say XP then you can jump from a C172 to a Airbus A330 and everything in between. That they have managed to maintain good fidelity both visually and in performance is itself remarkable. 

The term "study level" was coined by Robert Randazzo in FS9.  It was used to describe their 747-400, although it was never officially study level.  Meaning it was never certified.  It was definitely a ground breaking add on, with systems coded by Lefteris Kalamaris (now owner of FSLabs), but it's pretty much just a marketing term.  And one that is used far too often, to the point it shouldn't be taken seriously.  All add ons are to be used for entertainment purposes.  Nothing replaces real world training.  Flight sims can help with keeping current when it comes to procedures, but other than that, take the term with a grain of salt.

4 minutes ago, GoranM said:

The term "study level" was coined by Robert Randazzo in FS9.  It was used to describe their 747-400, although it was never officially study level.  Meaning it was never certified.  It was definitely a ground breaking add on, with systems coded by Lefteris Kalamaris (now owner of FSLabs), but it's pretty much just a marketing term. Nothing replaces real world training.  Flight sims can help with keeping current when it comes to procedures, but other than that, take the term with a grain of salt.

Bingo!