Stupid answer to a serious question.
I would expect a great deal of assurance (formal documentation, checks by competent engineers, stress calculations, regular maintenance) would be required before such a dynamic platform could be put into use in any environment, not just a cadet one. Moving parts would need to be guarded to prevent accidental intrusion and subsequent injury.
Operational procedures would need to be drafted and followed to ensure safeguards were in place prior to operation and everything was fully static after the sortie to allow people get off safely. Of course you would also need emergency procedures to permit expeditious exit when required, probably including a big, red power-cut button.
For our level of training, motion systems are a complexity what doesn’t offer any real advantage. Build in properly immersive visuals and your brain will do the rest.
Perhaps we have have a better explanation/description of “moving platform” - I doubt that it will be a mega-motion system with electro-hydraluic jacks, etc!
Is it like the crap one at the Lossie RAC which is essentially 2 wheeled trolleys - one for the seat and one for the displays?
I wonder how many times people have said this, and then it’s repeated back to them at the investigation/tribunal/prosecution trial.
Dear all - many, many, thanks for the replies, some really good answers and indeed some very useful information and ideas. Certainly plenty to help us put together a sound development plan and hopefully a fun and enjoyable project.
I’m a ‘half glass full’ man, so it was not the intention of the thread to debate how much the ACO are spending or plans, and I was keen to avoid being negative in anyway as sometimes it is unhelpful. I was just hoping for some decent recommendations and ideas for development of the sim. We all have issue and items we may or may not agree with - but there is usually a lot more to it. So please if you feel strongly about something else then could I respectably suggest you start another thread.
Many thanks again.
ofcourse it has formal documentation and checked and all the other ‘elf and safety’ precautions.
It is a small moving platform that is covered and does have an emergency stop button. All I am saying is that it was built a while ago and not even been used once! Just seems like a waste of money.
These Cadets who will hopefully be teaching are over 18 (mature) and competent, why should they not be allowed to pass their skills on? what, because they are a ‘cadet’.
Feels silly how we have the people to use and teach on the Flight Sim and people above are too much bothered about paperwork and actually getting something done. It is just excuse making
There would be absolutely nothing to stop anyone using a motion base simulator providing it is safe, all risks are properly assessed, and all required precautions are taken; training and supervision provided where necessary.
In other news, whilst I hate a digress so far off topic I’ve got to address this…
There is no issue with using DCCT. An RCO needs to have appropriate qualification (DCCT Basic Operator) which is fairly easily obtained and you need to book time just as you would on a live range.
Nothing is “frowned upon” in that case. The drills required on the DCCT are exactly as they would be for LFMT.
The DCCT rifle is an L85A2. What often happens is that cadets are told to “set and forget” the change lever so that for the duration of the practice all the drills they carry out on the DCCT will be exactly the same as they would on the L98A2.
The only restriction to DCCT usage is that cadets should not use the “live action” human scenarios. Using the standard range practices is absolutely permitted and is exactly why our RCOs can qualify on the DCCT. Whilst it should not replace LFMT it can be a valuable training aid alongside.
1 Like
OK, here is a scenario. A squadron I know buys two (not one but two) professional flight simulators, an FNPT 1 (Instrument and procedures trainer) & a BITD (basically a VFR trainer) with 180 degree fully immersive outside visual system on a huge curved screen 6 meters in circumference and 2 meters high. They buy a brand new Portacabin to fit it in and replace an older building with it (RFCA have given permission for it) and then get the current Regional Commandant to open the facility… Everyone is happy, especially the cadets.
Five years pass and the ‘new’ RC visits, decides 24 hours after the visit that the simulators are to be put out of bounds as well as the Portakabin! NOTE: the simulators DO NOT have motion platforms, it’s all immersive visuals!!!
Reason for the ban? Never explained…
The RC mentioned above is now OC 2 FTS…
Two of his famous quotes to my mate are:
1. Simulators are not a part of the ACO sylabus!
2. We aren’t here to teach cadets to fly!
Oh, I forgot… who’s idea were RAC’s and the simulators contained therein?
Back to DCCT, yes OK they CAN be used for cadet training but are abused quite often by operators using the “live action” aspect and using the excuse well cadets can play shoot 'em up games on their games consoles at home anyway!
Perhaps this is reinforced by the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft on the simulators at the RAC’s?
Perhaps we digress a little though 
I’m sure everyone has already read that investigation report which was bounced around last year.
No
(Post must be at least 20 characters long and I only wanted to say no)
Investigation report? Into what?
How often do people use these at their squadrons, when you consider the cost?
I’ve been approached by staff to get one, but when I look at the cost vs predicted usage, I struggle to justify it, especially given it’s electronic technology so will become an insatiable beast.
Could anyone say when you’d need to update hardware/software and what are the potential initial and ongoing costs? What I don’t want is something that looks and works fine now, but 3-5 years down the line is a ZX80. We’ve got to start looking to get new laptops for the sqn in the next couple of years as the OS get unsupported and they’re only 6 years old, but were decent home use spec when we got them.
I can buy tents and so on and know that they’ll (with care) still be serviceable tents in 30 years time, but a piece of electronic technology will be landfill well within 10 years.
We use ours every week and then during Project Days that we run at the weekends as well. It is a key project activity for the cadets - so our big two sims and the 6 standard desktop sims are in use regularly.
We look at it differently - the ICT supports a wide range of functions including flight simulation, eDofE and Ultilearn which makes the investment easier to justify and seek funding for.
Modern computers are really powerful beasts and the lifespan has increased (I think) because we primarily only use flight simulation software, MS Office and the internet - so they don’ t need to be upgraded every year which keeps the lifespan costs down. There is also scope to do incremental upgrades over time to things like RAM capacity and graphics cards.
Also, where possible, I try to avoid paying for anything by getting grants and funding support for our ICT kit.
ICT capacity and capability, as you said, changes rapidly but we have to keep pace to ensure the cadets have access to what they need access to on the right kind of kit. We have invested probably £20k over the past 6 years in technology, but about £10k of that has come through funding and the rest has been spread over time so the hit isn’t as noticeable. I appreciate that sounds a little glib/smug but I am happy to share funding applications etc with anyone that asks for them 
If you want to do flight simulation properly you need to dedicate the IT hardware to that task. It is one thing plugging in a USB joystick to a laptop and using FS-X to demonstrate effects of controls and instrumentation but quite another to have to waste half a night rewiring a machine, realigning projectors and screens and otherwise messing up a potentially complex simulation environment for the sake of sharing the computer between tasks.
If you don’t then use that dedicated sim frequently it becomes a wasted resource, gathering dust and taking up space.
Completely agree with that - we have two main sims: one that is based on the F-16 sims that are in the AOAC at Linton and the other is Tutor focused with dials and panels etc.
We use the desktop sims for precisely what you say; demonstrating the effects of controls and learning how the cockpit works before they hit the AEF
Usage and cost is the biggest issue with Flight Sims, I completely agree. A squadron close to me spent £6000 on 3 big shiny multi screen sims but doesn’t actually have any competent staff or cadets to instruct on them.
I’ve been setting up a dozen networked sims running on xp machines with just 1 monitor and a joystick. As is stated above they can be used for effects of controls, rules of the air, formation flying and Air Traffic Radio-telephony.
I recently had the pleasure of being cornered by OC 2FTS who wanted to talk about the much lauded Part Task-Trainers. From what I understood he was looking for instructors who would be required to attend a course at Syerston and be assessed on a six-monthly basis for competence. These instructors would be drawn from the wider corps rather than the diminishing VGS cadre but presumably would still have to attend at a VGS to instruct on a PTT. He did not sell the concept very well at all, in the words of my also cornered mate ‘Sounds great, I can do a hard and boring course to travel many miles to a VGS to stare at some computers.’
Can have some of whatever he was smoking? What a ludicrous state of affairs. Talk about empire-building - I get assessed every 6 months for my ATPL licence, why on earth would he want to introduce something so restrictive? It’s almost worth volunteering to go & tear things to shreds… 
Obviously, this PTT “flying” is far more dangerous than shooting - RCOs aren’t assessed every 6 months!
Yep…
2 Likes
Never mind, according to what I heard OC 2FTS will have ‘retired’ in under 18 months time. Sounds like he is trying to make an impression before he goes…
For someone that is on record saying ‘It’s not the job of the ACO to teach cadets to fly, that is the job of the Central Flying School’ it sure sounds like he’s trying to sell the idea of flight simulation as a substitute for real flying!
It’s a 360 degree change of attitude to what he told my mate a few years ago…
You have got to wonder where some of this thinking comes from within the higher echelons of the ACO, it sure sounds like ‘not invented here’ syndrome i.e. it’s only a good idea if it’s my idea!
A BITD device trainer with a qualified flight instructor gives up to 5 hours credit towards a PPL or with a good instructor (not a qualified one) they are still a fantastic training device!
Oh! I forgot, only when you are OC 2FTS and not when you are in your previous post…