There is no doubt simulation plays a key role in learning and maintaining crucial skillsets in aviation. Embry-Riddle’s Daytona campus is taking simulation a step further.
“All first-year students enrolled for the fall 2021 semester on Embry-Riddle’s Daytona Beach Campus will begin hands-on flight training by mid-spring 2022. To improve flight readiness so that time in the air is well spent, students will first complete routine, compulsory requirements in virtual reality (VR) environments in newly acquired, dedicated software and hardware platforms.”
Embry-Riddle will leverage simulation technology to help first-year students become familiar with the aircraft they will fly; the preflight and operational procedures for the aircraft; and the protocols for communication with air traffic control.
This four-week readiness program will include daily activities in Embry-Riddle’s Frasca level 6 Flight Training Devices. “These devices provide a high-fidelity experience that match the flight deck and flight characteristics of Embry-Riddle training aircraft,” said Dr. Ken Byrnes, chair of the Flight Department and assistant dean of the Daytona Beach Campus College of Aviation. “In addition, students will receive daily one-on-one knowledge instruction with their flight instructor.”
All of these activities will be enhanced and reinforced by completion of the VR training.
Embry-Riddle’s new approach to flight training will allow students to practice in virtual reality (VR) devices using interactive, state-of-the-art simulation software. The U.S. Air Force’s Pilot Training Next program has touted improved student learning and reduced training time using VR.
Following successful completion of this first phase of their training, students will transition to hands-on flight training in aircraft. “Students will be fully prepared for training in the aircraft, which will allow them to perform at a higher level with a deeper understanding of every aspect required for primary flight training,” Byrnes said. “In addition, students will be scheduled in aircraft more frequently, which will allow them to maintain a high level of proficiency. Ultimately, students will complete their flight training faster and at a lower cost in this program.”
We recently upgraded our IFR panel that was state of the art 30 years ago. My initial tongue-in-cheek comment to the avionics shop was that it’s going to take me 1000 gallons of avgas to get completely comfortable to where I was with my old panel. Clearly, the new technology is ultimately safer since it provides far greater information to the pilot while reducing the systems required for a pilot to manage. With the greater workload in the ATC system including; increased traffic and a reduced staff plus the GPS airways, pilot awareness including; traffic, real-time weather and terrific information in less area, it all becomes key to a safe system.
I’d really like to see this training made available to the general aviation population.
Is there any chance a training program could be made available to the general aviation population?
Glass is far easier than steam gauges. Why? You don’t have to translate analog to digital. Glass is quick to read and provides a LOT more information that is critical to flight. Plus, glass usually offers crew alerts which round gauges sit there passively and dumb and offer nothing like that… Glass also gives you graphical representations of ADS-B targets the most critical tool in the cockpit now. New and young pilots SHOULD NOT learn on old technology round gauges…it is a waste of time…
My partners in our Cessna 210 are excited about getting a new glass panel. I believe practicing the new equipment in a simulator is wise because the attention load during IFR approaches is tough enough. Adding the learning curve for different equipment also distracts the instructor or safety pilot.
I can see how it would shorten the time, if what I understand is correct: That USAF candidate pilots must already have at a minimum, a PPL and possibly 150 hrs or more. In that case, I think the VR stuff would help them rapidly prepare for the next level of flight — which probably does include Instrument flying.
Not correct for USAF initial pilot requirements.
However USAF and now Navy/Marine Corps flight training have tried VR and have validated the value and both have or are incorporating it flight training.
Flying the airplane is easy, learning glass cockpits are very time consuming. It’s not the same as steam gauges and dial radios. If you could operate your car radio, you could operate the plain radio.
Not the same today.
The pricy cockpit is not the place to learn how to operate the glass panel.
Absolutely agreed, learning procedures for advanced avionics outside the airplane not only helps cut costs directly by moving that learning to a cheaper machine, but may also benefit the flying part of training by reducing student workload and allowing them to just focus on the flying instead of trying to learn both things at once.
I believe that there is a place for simulators in the GA environment, but that’s in instrument training and proficiency, not in ab initio training. There is simply no simulator made which adequately duplicates the feel of any light trainer in light to moderate turbulence, or gusty crosswinds while landing, or countless other scenarios any light GA pilot encounters almost every time he or she takes to the air. My semi-educated guess is that if this program shortens the training regimen at all, it won’t be by much. Some will complete their training more quickly, but others won’t, and the statistics will be twisted and turned in whatever way the statisticians want them to be.
If I’m right about Embry-Riddle being an all G1000 fleet, there may be a good place for sims for initial training in this case. Allowing students to learn the G1000 package before climbing into the real airplane so they can put more focus into sick and rudder flying instead of splitting the mental load between advanced avionics and flying. At the very least this may save some money for students by using cheaper sim time and allowing the airplane time to be more efficient if it doesn’t cut down on total time
Zack is absolutely correct. I own a 2005 Cessna 182 with the G1000 and I don’t know half of what it will do. It’s impossible for me, maybe not for everyone, to fly the plane and concentrate on learning all the functions this glass cockpit will do. There is an occasional class on the G1000 but it’s super expensive and I’ve been told not all that great a course. I’ve subscribed to a couple of one line courses but found both to be very superficial so didn’t learn much from them. I’ve put my plane on the charger and played with the G1000 on numerous occasions but the booklet that came with the G1000 is impossible for me to follow. Consequently, I just know enough about the G1000 to fly the plane and that’s about it. I’ve also found that most CFI’s are in about the same boat with it.