AOPA Pilot Magazine - April 2014 - 85

P&E

DOGFIGHT: SIMULATORS
The young dog is ready for the future; the old dog, not so much. Senior editors Ian J. Twombly
and Dave Hirschman debate the viability of simulation in training.

Move it!

Motion commotion

Motion makes it better

Low-cost motion sims don't cut it

B Y I A N J. T W O M B LY

B Y DAV E H I R S C H M A N

THERE'S A REASON Redbird Flight Simulations of Austin, Texas,
has had massive success with its motion simulation platforms.
Actually, there are many reasons, and you could take any one
of them and still make a successful product. Put them together
and they make up what Redbird calls the fastest-selling simulator in history.
The key behind Redbird's success is, of course, value. The
relatively low price is what got the company so much attention
in the beginning. Prior to the FMX launch, a flight school owner
would be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a
non-motion platform or many thousands of dollars for a singlescreen desktop model. The result was that it was incredibly rare
to see anything other than a desktop simulator in a flight school.
Redbird exploited a gap in the market and offered the first low-cost
motion platform.
At roughly $70,000, the
Redbird platform isn't perfect. It
doesn't always feel exactly like
the airplane, the motion isn't as
smooth as more expensive simulators, and the motion doesn't
handle spins or other aggressive
maneuvers well. And that's OK.
IAN TWOMBLY
Simulators that cost $1 million or
more don't do all these things, either-and in many cases the visuals are worse. Many critics compare the two devices as if they are
providing the same level of training, which is nonsense. This false
equation misses the point of an inexpensive motion platform,
which is to shorten training time and create better pilots-both
of which FMX does well.
Airplanes are the world's worst classrooms. They are as
unconducive to training as you could imagine. Simulators, on
the other hand, are designed for learning. They are safe, quiet,
comfortable, and you can stop and start them at will. The fact
that the motion isn't perfect or the G1000 buttons aren't exact
is not as critical as exposing someone to stalls, steep turns, slow
flight, and ground reference maneuvers in a proper environment.
Not to mention emergency training, which is vastly superior in
a simulator.
Simply saying the motion isn't as good as a high-end device
doesn't somehow prove that a more modest device isn't effective. Although we are learning more about how effective motion
can be in primary training all the time, Redbird's initial success at
its Skyport flight training laboratory presents some strong initial
proof. In the first year of operation, students there earned pilot

FULL-MOTION flight simulators are indispensable teaching tools
for corporate, military, and airline pilots-but the low-cost models I've seen just don't have the fidelity to provide real value for
primary students. Not yet, anyway.
To be a worthwhile tool, a motion simulator must realistically
re-create the sensations of flight. And although today's sims are
getting close, they aren't ready for prime time. Operate a Level
C or D simulator and you can lose yourself in the experience
because it feels so much like the real thing. In a low-cost motion
sim, that's not the case.
Redbird's single-seat Cub simulator drew a great deal of attention when the cute yellow-and-black model was unveiled on the
iconic Piper J-3's seventy-fifth anniversary-but does it fly like
a Cub? Not remotely. The innovative firm introduced a formation
flying challenge with another sim
meant to mimic an Aerostar Yak52W. The instrument panel and the
radial engine sounds resemble the
real thing, but the sensations of flying aren't even close.
This shouldn't be a surprise.
High-end military flight simulators
DAVE HIRSCHMAN
are driven by massive hydraulic
systems controlled by powerful
computers, and each one can cost millions of dollars. The same
is true at the airlines and corporate training firms where pilots
leave Level D simulators with type ratings never having set foot
in the actual airplane.
Would a student who learned to take off and land in a Redbird
be safe to fly a Cessna 172? Of course not.
Low-cost simulators are terrific for teaching normal and
emergency procedures, introducing students to new concepts,
and giving them a preview of what to expect in upcoming lessons.
They're also amazingly helpful in aiding rated pilots maintain
their skills. But those things also can be done effectively in nonmotion sims (such as the Jay that AOPA and Redbird market
jointly) or even desktop computer programs.
It would be wonderful if students could master the landing
flare in a relatively low-cost motion simulator. That would save
untold quantities of avgas, tire tread, and sweaty hours grinding
around the traffic pattern-not to mention lowering student costs
and growing the size of the pilot population.
Perhaps Redbird itself could settle the motion question once
and for all at its Skyport laboratory in San Marcos. Set up a control group of students who learn in non-motion sims and compare

continued on page 86

continued on page 86
www.aopa.org/pilot AOPA PILOT | 85

http://www.aopa.org/pilot

AOPA Pilot Magazine - April 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - April 2014