There will also be the issue of trg CFAVs to use the new equipment…
By recent, I use a “Level D” simulator on a regular basis. 
I would not expect the ACO to have or need any fully-certified flight simulator that could be used to provide loggable hours. While they are useful for briefings or familiarisation that should be it.
That is not to say that there are situations where synthetic training can replace actual flight time, just not within our organisation. We are not really training pilots but are offering flying. Synthetic hours are no more desirable than using skype for radio training or Call of Duty or even a DCCT for marksmanship shoots.
Was briefed by a member of our SATT the other day that the idea of DCCT Marksmanship was being looked at, at a high level.
I’ve used a DCCT before with cadets. We were using the scenario simulation with insurgents at a RAF base and how you would react to the situation by firing or not and the Cadets loved it, and we also had scenarios in Afghanistan. I think it is a very good experience for Cadets because it teaches them on how to handle a situation efficiently rather than just shooting at something.
back on topic to the Flight Simulator, different simulators teach different areas such as Principle of Flight, how to control an aircraft and same as above, how to handle situations from your judgement.
At our squadron we have a Flight Simulator which cost quite a lot of money and not being used at all because there is no one qualified? I believe you need a Aerospace Instructor Qualification to teach on a Flight Sim? We have a few cadets that have completed QAIC but are not allowed to teach or use it
This sounds to me like a nonsense and if people are suggesting that you need special authorisation to teach basic syllabus lessons using a flight sim as a visual aid in their lessons then they need to be set straight and put back in their box.
I have no problem with requiring trained personnel to operate the sims and other stuff in RACs because we are seeking to provide consistency in that environment and trying to prevent apes from messing everything up. When it comes to your squadron’s kit in your own environment then I say crack on and use is as you wish.
I remember seeing a suggestion (I think from OC2FTS) to usurp control of all squadron-owned flight simulators. I hope it was laughed out of the meeting as it is completely out of touch with the reality of a squadron and shows a deep misunderstanding of the use of flight simulators in an ACO environment.
Horse poo! Use it as you wish, with the most suitable staff/cadets as instructors. You may well find a “secret” Flt Sim cadet or 2 who already have extensive experience in on-line flight sim stuff = use their skills.
Yes for RACs - but that might still result in a shortage of trained instructors? It’s likely to be another weekend requirement, & not necessarily at a near-by location.
I wish we could, it is a moving platform so various ‘elf and safety’ blah blah blah.
just seems very pointless that the ACO spend money for this Flight Sim and various people in the Chain of Command Huff and Puff because we ask them to get ‘Qualified Instructors’, which means paperwork for them.
My view is that the reason the Cadets (who are qualified) can’t teach the Flight Sim is simply the fact that they are ‘Cadets’.
What is the configuration of the “moving platform” & what associated hazards? If it is not a major electrical or hydraulic “motion” system, what are the concerns?
Surely when installed, there would have been specified criteria to operate it. I cannot see that “qualified instructors” should be required, merely the need to ensure that the “moving platform” safety aspects are covered?
this was exactly my thoughts, hazards are the most simple. trips and slips, hands being caught in machinery.
To be Honest. I am just going to crack on and let my Cadets teach on the Flight Sim. When the chain of command finds out there will probably be more Huffs and Puffs because they don’t want to do the paperwork, but hey-ho. Think they need to read the aims of the Corps again
What like a little ‘nip’ or potential for crush injuries, loss of limbs/appendages or “de-gloving”?
Depends on the stupidity of the cadet testing out if it can deglove 
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