Airline Industry In The 1920s

Technology used for preparation aircrew

A flying simulator is a device that artificially re-creates aircraft flight and the environs in which it flies, for pilot training, design, or other purposes. Information technology includes replicating the equations that govern how aircraft fly, how they react to applications of flight controls, the effects of other aircraft systems, and how the shipping reacts to external factors such every bit air density, turbulence, wind shear, cloud, precipitation, etc. Flight simulation is used for a diverseness of reasons, including flight grooming (mainly of pilots), the blueprint and development of the shipping itself, and research into aircraft characteristics and control handling qualities.^[1]

The term "flight simulator" may conduct slightly different meaning in full general linguistic communication and technical documents. In past regulations it referred specifically to devices which tin can closely mimic the behavior of aircraft throughout various procedures and flying conditions.^[two] In more recent definitions, this has been named "total flight simulator".^[3]. The more than generic term "flying simulation training device" (FSTD) is used to refer to different kinds of flight training devices, and that corresponds more than closely to meaning of the phrase "flight simulator" in general English.^[iv]

History of flight simulation [edit]

In 1910, on the initiative of the French commanders Clolus and Laffont and Lieutenant Clavenad, the first basis training aircraft for military aircraft were built. The "Tonneau Antoinette" (Antoinette butt), created by the Antoinette company, seems to exist the forerunner of flight simulators.

World State of war I (1914–1918) [edit]

An area of training was for air gunnery handled by the pilot or a specialist air gunner. Firing at a moving target requires aiming ahead of the target (which involves the so-chosen pb angle) to allow for the fourth dimension the bullets require to accomplish the vicinity of the target. This is sometimes also called "deflection shooting" and requires skill and exercise. During World State of war I, some ground-based simulators were adult to teach this skill to new pilots.^[5]

The 1920s and 1930s [edit]

The best-known early on flight simulation device was the Link Trainer, produced past Edwin Link in Binghamton, New York, Us, which he started building in 1927. He subsequently patented his design, which was showtime available for sale in 1929. The Link Trainer was a basic metal frame flight simulator unremarkably painted in its well-known blueish color. Some of these early state of war era flight simulators still be, merely it is becoming increasingly difficult to notice working examples.^[6]

The Link family firm in Binghamton manufactured player pianos and organs, and Ed Link was therefore familiar with such components equally leather bellows and reed switches. He was also a airplane pilot, but dissatisfied with the amount of real flight training that was bachelor, he decided to build a ground-based device to provide such training without the restrictions of weather and the availability of shipping and flying instructors. His design had a pneumatic motion platform driven past inflatable bellows which provided pitch and gyre cues. A vacuum motor similar to those used in player pianos rotated the platform, providing yaw cues. A generic replica cockpit with working instruments was mounted on the motion platform. When the cockpit was covered, pilots could practice flying by instruments in a rubber environment. The motion platform gave the pilot cues as to real angular motion in pitch (nose up and downwards), ringlet (wing upward or downwardly) and yaw (nose left and right).^[vii]

Initially, aviation flight schools showed little interest in the "Link Trainer". Link also demonstrated his trainer to the U.South. Army Air Force (USAAF), but with no result. However, the state of affairs changed in 1934 when the Regular army Air Force was given a authorities contract to fly the postal mail. This included having to fly in bad weather likewise as proficient, for which the USAAF had not previously carried out much training. During the first weeks of the post service, nearly a dozen Regular army pilots were killed. The Army Air Force bureaucracy remembered Ed Link and his trainer. Link flew in to meet them at Newark Field in New Jersey, and they were impressed by his ability to make it on a day with poor visibility, due to practice on his training device. The result was that the USAAF purchased half dozen Link Trainers, and this can be said to mark the start of the globe flying simulation industry.^[vii]

Earth War Ii (1939–1945) [edit]

The chief airplane pilot trainer used during Globe War Ii was the Link Trainer. Some 10,000 were produced to railroad train 500,000 new pilots from allied nations, many in the The states and Canada because many pilots were trained in those countries earlier returning to Europe or the Pacific to fly gainsay missions.^[7] Well-nigh all US Army Air Forcefulness pilots were trained in a Link Trainer.^[eight]

A unlike type of World War Ii trainer was used for navigating at nighttime past the stars. The Angelic Navigation Trainer of 1941 was 13.vii m (45 ft) high and capable of accommodating the navigation squad of a bomber crew. It enabled sextants to exist used for taking "star shots" from a projected brandish of the night sky.^[7]

1945 to the 1960s [edit]

In 1954 United Airlines bought iv flight simulators at a toll of $three meg from Curtiss-Wright that were similar to the earlier models, with the add-on of visuals, sound and movement. This was the get-go of today'south modernistic flight simulators for commercial aircraft.^[nine]

Today [edit]

The simulator manufacturers are consolidating and integrate vertically equally training offers double-digit growth: CAE forecast 255,000 new airline pilots from 2017 to 2027 (lxx a day), and 180,000 first officers evolving to captains. The largest manufacturer is Canadian CAE Inc. with a 70% market place share and $two.viii billion annual revenues, manufacturing preparation devices for 70 years but moved into training in 2000 with multiple acquisitions. At present CAE makes more from training than from producing the simulators. Crawley-based L3 CTS entered the market place in 2012 by acquiring Thales Training & Simulation'due south manufacturing found well-nigh Gatwick Airport where it assembles up to 30 devices a year, and then UK CTC training school in 2015, Aerosim in Sanford, Florida in 2016, and Portuguese academy 1000 Air in October 2017.^[x]

With a 20% market share, equipment still accounts for more than than half of L3 CTS turnover but that could soon be reversed as it educates ane,600 commercial pilots each year, vii% of the 22,000 inbound the profession annually, and aims for 10% in a fragmented market place. The third largest is TRU Simulation + Training, created in 2014 when parent Textron Aviation merged its simulators with Mechtronix, OPINICUS and ProFlight, focusing on simulators and developing the offset total-flight simulators for the 737 MAX and the 777X. The quaternary is FlightSafety International, focused on general, business and regional aircraft. Airbus and Boeing accept invested in their ain grooming centres, aiming for higher margins than aircraft manufacturing like MRO, competing with their suppliers CAE and L3.^[10]

In June 2018, there were i,270 commercial airline simulators in service, upwards past l over a year: 85% FFSs and fifteen% FTDs. CAE supplied 56% of this installed base, L3 CTS twenty% and FlightSafety International ten%, while CAE's training centres are the largest operator, with a 13% share. North America has 38% of the earth's grooming devices, Asia-Pacific 25% and Europe 24%. Boeing types stand for 45% of all simulated aircraft, followed by Airbus with 35%, then Embraer at 7%, Bombardier at half dozen% and ATR at iii%.^[11]

Applications [edit]

Pilot grooming [edit]

Cockpit of a twinjet flight simulator.

Nearly flying simulators are used primarily for flight training. The simplest simulators are used to practise basic cockpit procedures, such as processing emergency checklists, and for cockpit familiarization. They are also used for musical instrument flying training,^{[12] [13]} for which the outside view is less important. Certain aircraft systems may or may not be simulated, and the aerodynamic model is usually extremely generic if nowadays at all.^[14] Depending on the level of certification, instruments that would have moving indicators in a real aircraft may be implemented with a display. With more avant-garde displays, cockpit representation and motility systems, flight simulators tin be used to credit different amount of flight hours towards a pilot license.^[15]

Specific classes of simulators are also used for grooming other than obtaining initial license such equally instrument rating revalidation, or about commonly^[16] obtaining type rating for specific kind of aircraft.

Other uses [edit]

During the aircraft pattern process, flight simulators tin can be used instead of performing some flight tests. Such "engineering flight simulators" can provide a fast way to find errors, reducing both the risks and the cost of development.^[17] Additionally, this allows use of actress measurement equipment that might be too big or otherwise impractical to include during onboard a real aircraft. Throughout different phases of the pattern process, different engineering science simulators with various level of complexity are used.^{[18] : xiii}

Flying simulators may include preparation tasks for crew other than pilots. Examples include gunners on a military aircraft or hoist operators.^[20] Divide simulators accept as well been used for tasks related to flight, similar evacuating the shipping in case of a crash in water.^[21] With loftier complexity of many systems composing contemporary aircraft, aircraft maintenance simulators are increasingly popular.^{[22] [23]}

Qualification and approval [edit]

Procedure [edit]

Before September 2018,^[24] when a manufacturer wished to have an ATD model approved, a document that contains the specifications for the model line and that proves compliance with the appropriate regulations is submitted to the FAA. Once this document, chosen a Qualification Approving Guide (QAG), has been approved, all future devices befitting to the QAG are automatically approved and individual evaluation is neither required nor available.^[25]

The actual procedure accepted by all CAAs (Civil Aviation Authorities) around the earth is to propose 30 days prior qualification date (40 days for CAAC) a MQTG certificate (Master Qualification Test Guide), which is proper to a unique simulator device and will live along the device itself, containing objective, and functional and subjective tests to demonstrate the representativeness of the simulator compare to the airplane. The results will be compared to Flight Test Data provided past aircraft OEMs or from exam entrada ordered by simulator OEMs or also tin can be compared by POM (Proof Of Match) data provided by aircraft OEMs evolution simulators. Some of the QTGs will exist rerun during the year to testify during continuous qualification that the simulator is still in the tolerances canonical by the CAA.^{[26] [12] [27]}

United states of america Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) categories [edit]

Aviation Training Device (ATD)^[28]

• FAA Basic ATD (BATD) – Provides an adequate training platform and design for both procedural and operational performance tasks specific to the ground and flight training requirements for Private Pilot Certificate and instrument rating per Title xiv of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• FAA Advanced ATD (AATD) – Provides an acceptable training platform for both procedural and operational performance tasks specific to the ground and flight training requirements for Private Airplane pilot Certificate, instrument rating, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certificate, and Flying Instructor Certificate.

Flying Training Devices (FTD)^[29]

• FAA FTD Level iv – Similar to a Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT). This level does not require an aerodynamic model, merely accurate systems modeling is required.
• FAA FTD Level 5 – Aerodynamic programming and systems modeling is required, but it may stand for a family of aircraft rather than but one specific model.
• FAA FTD Level 6 – Shipping-model-specific aerodynamic programming, command feel, and physical cockpit are required.
• FAA FTD Level 7 – Model specific. All applicative aerodynamics, flight controls, and systems must exist modeled. A vibration system must be supplied. This is the first level to crave a visual system.

Total Flight Simulators (FFS)^[30]

• FAA FFS Level A – A move system is required with at to the lowest degree iii degrees of freedom. Airplanes only.
• FAA FFS Level B – Requires three axis motion and a higher-allegiance aerodynamic model than does Level A. The everyman level of helicopter flight simulator.
• FAA FFS Level C – Requires a motion platform with all vi degrees of freedom. Also lower transport delay (latency) over levels A & B. The visual arrangement must take an outside-world horizontal field of view of at least 75 degrees for each pilot.
• FAA FFS Level D – The highest level of FFS qualification currently available. Requirements are for Level C with additions. The move platform must take all six degrees of freedom, and the visual system must accept an exterior-world horizontal field of view of at least 150 degrees, with a collimated (distant focus) display. Realistic sounds in the cockpit are required, too as a number of special motion and visual effects.

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA, ex JAA) categories [edit]

These definitions utilize to both airplanes^[3] and helicopters^[31] unless specified otherwise. Training devices briefly compared below are all different subclasses of Flight simulation training device (FSTD).

Basic instrument training device (BITD) airplanes only : A basic student station for musical instrument flight procedures; tin use spring loaded flight controls, and instruments displayed on a screen

Flying Navigation and Procedures Trainer (FNPT) : Representation of cockpit with all equipment and software to replicate function of aircraft systems

• EASA FNPT Level I : Fully enclosed existent-scale cockpit, command forces and travel representative of the aircraft, aerodynamic model taking into business relationship changes to airspeed, loading and other factors
• EASA FNPT Level II : Model handling of aircraft on basis and in footing effect, effects of icing, visual system including different ambience lighting atmospheric condition (i.e. day, night, dusk)
• EASA FNPT Level III helicopters simply : Wider field of view and means of quickly testing correct operation of hardware and software
• MCC : Additional requirements for FNPT Level II and 3 to be used for multi-crew cooperation training, for example which instruments demand to be doubled for each crew member^[32]

Flight Training Devices (FTD)

• EASA FTD Level 1 : May lack a visual system, compared to FNPT the aircraft systems must operate correctly based only on pilot inputs without requiring instructor actions
• EASA FTD Level two : Visual organisation with different conditions, cockpit must include other crew stations, controls must replicate motion dynamics
• EASA FTD Level three helicopter only : Model data must exist based on validation flights - cannot be generic aerodynamical model, wider field of view

Full Flight Simulators (FFS)

• EASA FFS Level A : Motion system with 3 degrees of liberty (pitch, scroll, boost)
• EASA FFS Level B : Move system with all 6 degrees of liberty, modelling ground treatment
• EASA FFS Level C : Simulate unlike runway weather, icing, more than detailed aerodynamic model
• EASA FFS Level D : Characteristic vibrations that can be felt in the cockpit, realistic dissonance levels

Engineering [edit]

Simulator structure [edit]

Flight simulator block diagram

Flight simulators are an case of a human being-in-the-loop arrangement, in which interaction with a human user is constantly happening. From perspective of the device, the inputs are primary flying controls, instrument panel buttons and switches and the instructor'south station, if present. Based on these, the internal state is updated, and equations of motion solved for the new time step.^[33] The new state of the faux aircraft is shown to the user through visual, auditory, move and touch channels.

To simulate cooperative tasks, the simulator can be suited for multiple users, every bit is the case with multi-crew cooperation simulators. Alternatively, more simulators can be continued, what is known every bit "parallel simulation" or "distributed simulation".^[34] As war machine shipping ofttimes need to cooperate with other craft or military personnel, wargames are a common use for distributed simulation. Because of that, numerous standards for distributed simulation including aircraft take been developed with military organisations. Some examples include SIMNET, DIS and HLA .

Simulation models [edit]

The key element of simulation model are the equations of motion for the shipping.^[33] As the aircraft moves through atmosphere it can exhibit both translational and rotational degrees of liberty. To achieve perception of fluent movement, these equations are solved 50 or lx times per second.^{[xviii] : 16} The forces for motion are calculated from aerodynamical models, which in plow depend on state of control surfaces, driven past specific systems, with their avionics, etc. As is the case with modelling, depending on the required level of realism, there are be dissimilar levels of item, with some sub-models omitted in simpler simulators.

If a homo user is part of the simulator, which might not be the case for some engineering simulators, there is a need to perform the simulation in real-fourth dimension. Low refresh rates not merely reduce realism of simulation, just they accept also been linked with increase in simulator sickness.^[35] The regulations place a limit on maximum latency between pilot input and aircraft reaction. Because of that, tradeoffs are made to attain the required level of realism with a lower computational cost. Flight simulators typically don't include full computational fluid dynamics models for forces or atmospheric condition, but utilise databases of prepared results from calculations and data acquired in real flights. As an example, instead of simulating flow over the wings, lift coefficient may exist defined in terms of motility parameters similar angle of attack.^{[18] : 17}

While different models need to exchange data, most oft they can exist separated into a modular compages, for meliorate organisation and ease of development.^{[36] [37]} Typically, gear model for ground handling would be separate input to the main equations of motion. Each engine and avionics instrument is also a self-independent organization with well-defined inputs and outputs.

Instruments [edit]

All classes of FSTD require some form of replicating the cockpit. Equally they are the main ways of interaction betwixt the pilot and the aircraft special importance is assigned to cockpit controls. To achieve good transfer of skills, there are very specific requirements in the flying simulator regulations^[12] that determine how closely they must friction match the existent aircraft. These requirements in example of full flight simulators are so detailed, that it may be cost-effective to use the real office certified to wing, rather than industry a dedicated replica.^{[eighteen] : 18} Lower classes of simulators may utilise springs to mimic forces felt when moving the controls. When there is a need to better replicate the command forces or dynamic response, many simulators are equipped with actively driven force feedback systems. Vibration actuators may likewise exist included, either due to helicopter simulation requirements, or for aircraft equipped with a stick shaker.

Simulator with primary flight instruments replicated with flat displays

Another grade of tactile input from the pilot are instruments located on the panels in the cockpit. As they are used to interact with various aircraft systems, just that may be sufficient for some forms of procedure training. Displaying them on a screen is sufficient for the well-nigh basic BITD simulators^[three] and amateur flight simulation, however most classes of certified simulators demand all buttons, switches and other inputs to be operated in the same way equally in the aircraft cockpit. The necessity for a concrete copy of a cockpit contributes to the toll of simulator construction, and ties the hardware to a specific aircraft type. Because of these reasons, in that location is ongoing research on interactions in virtual reality, yet lack of tactile feedback negatively affects users' operation when using this technology.^{[38] [39]}

Visual system [edit]

A spherical display with multiple projectors visible above the cockpit

A wide angle cyllindrical display

Exterior view from the shipping is an important cue for flying the shipping, and is the master means of navigation for visual flight rules operation.^[40] I of the main characteristics of a visual organization is the field of view. Depending on the simulator type it may be sufficient to provide just a view frontwards using a flat display. However, some types of arts and crafts, e.g. fighter aircraft, require a very large field of view, preferably about full sphere, due to the manoeuvres that are performed during air combat.^[41] Similarly, since helicopters can perform hover flight in whatever direction, some classes of helicopter flight simulators require even 180 degrees of horizontal field of view.^[42]

In that location are many parameters in visual system pattern. For a narrow field of view, a unmarried display may be sufficient, nonetheless typically multiple projectors are required. This system needs boosted scale, both in terms of distortion from not projecting on a flat surface, equally well as brightness in regions with overlapping projections.^[43] In that location are too different shapes of screens used, including cylindrical,^[44] spherical^[43] or ellipsoidal. The image tin exist projected on the viewing side of the projection screen, or alternatively "back-projection" onto a translucent screen.^[45] Because the screen is much closer than objects exterior aircraft, for simulators with multiple pilots, there are special collimated displays that eliminate the parallax effect between the pilots' point of view.^[46]

An alternative to large-scale displays are virtual reality simulators using a caput-mounted display. This approach allows for a consummate field of view, and makes the simulator size considerably smaller. At that place are examples of utilize in research,^[37] as well as certified FSTD ^[47]

Real-time computer graphics visualisation of virtual worlds makes some aspects of flight simulator visual systems very like to game engines, sharing some techniques like dissimilar levels of details or libraries similar OpenGL^{[eighteen] : 343} .

Move system [edit]

Initially, the move systems used separate axes of movement, like to a gimbal. After the invention of Stewart platform^[48] simultaneous performance of all actuators became the preferred choice, with some FFS regulations specifically requiring "synergistic" 6 degrees of liberty move.^[49] In contrast to real aircraft, the simulated motion organization has a limited range in which it is able to move. That peculiarly affects the ability to simulate sustained accelerations, and requires a separate model to judge the cues to the human being vestibular organisation within the given constraints.^{[18] : 451}

Motion system is a major contributor to overall simulator cost^{[18] : 423} , only assessments of skill transfer based on training on a simulator and leading to handling an actual aircraft are difficult to make, peculiarly where motion cues are concerned. Large samples of airplane pilot opinion are required and many subjective opinions tend to be aired, peculiarly by pilots non used to making objective assessments and responding to a structured exam schedule. For many years, it was believed that vi DOF motion-based simulation gave the pilot closer allegiance to flight command operations and shipping responses to control inputs and external forces and gave a better preparation outcome for students than non-motion-based simulation. This is described as "treatment fidelity", which tin can be assessed by test flight standards such equally the numerical Cooper-Harper rating scale for handling qualities. Recent scientific studies have shown that the use of engineering science such as vibration or dynamic seats inside flight simulators tin be equally effective in the delivery of preparation as large and expensive half dozen-DOF FFS devices.^{[50] [51]}

Modern high-end flying simulators [edit]

Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) at NASA/Ames [edit]

The largest flight simulator in the globe is the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) at NASA Ames Inquiry Heart, south of San Francisco. This has a very large-throw motility system with threescore feet (+/- 30 ft) of vertical movement (heave). The heave system supports a horizontal beam on which are mounted 40 ft rails, allowing lateral movement of a simulator cab of +/- 20 feet. A conventional 6-degree of liberty hexapod platform is mounted on the 40 ft beam, and an interchangeable cabin is mounted on the platform. This design permits quick switching of different aircraft cabins. Simulations have ranged from blimps, commercial and armed services shipping to the Infinite Shuttle. In the example of the Space Shuttle, the large Vertical Motion Simulator was used to investigate a longitudinal airplane pilot-induced oscillation (PIO) that occurred on an early Shuttle flying but earlier landing. Subsequently identification of the problem on the VMS, it was used to try different longitudinal command algorithms and recommend the best for use in the Shuttle program.^[52]

Disorientation grooming [edit]

AMST Systemtechnik GmbH (AMST) of Austria and Environmental Tectonics Corporation (ETC) of Philadelphia, US, manufacture a range of simulators for disorientation training, that take full freedom in yaw. The most circuitous of these devices is the Desdemona simulator at the TNO Research Institute in Kingdom of the netherlands, manufactured past AMST. This large simulator has a gimballed cockpit mounted on a framework which adds vertical movement. The framework is mounted on rails fastened to a rotating platform. The rail allow the simulator cab to exist positioned at different radii from the centre of rotation and this gives a sustained Chiliad capability up to about 3.5.^{[53] [54]}

Amateur and video game flight simulation [edit]

See likewise [edit]

• FlightSimCon
• Full motion racing simulator
• Synthetic vision arrangement
• Unmanned Shipping Organisation Simulation
• Virtual reality simulator

References [edit]

Notes [edit]

1. ^ Federal Aviation Administration (25 Apr 2013). "FAR 121 Subpart N—Training Program". Retrieved 28 April 2013.
2. ^ "AC 120-40 Plane Simulator and Visual System Evaluation" (PDF). Federal Aviation Assistants.
3. ^ ^{a b c} CS FSTD(A).200: Terminology
4. ^ "Definition of flight simulator from the Cambridge Avant-garde Learner's Lexicon & Thesaurus". Cambridge University Printing.
5. ^ Bonnier Corporation (January 1919). "Dry Shooting for Airplane Gunners". Popular Science Monthly. Bonnier Corporation. pp. thirteen–14.
6. ^ Wing Away Simulation (12 July 2010). "Flight Simulator Engineering science Through the Years". Archived from the original on 12 October 2011. Retrieved 20 April 2011.
7. ^ ^{a b c d} "ASME Landmarks: The Link Flying Trainer." Archived 17 Dec 2011 at the Wayback Auto American Order of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved: 18 December 2011.
8. ^ "U.Southward. Air Strength Fact Sail: Link Trainer." National Museum of the United States Air Strength. Retrieved: 12 October 2016.
9. ^ Hearst Magazines (September 1954). "Airline Pilots Fly Anywhere in the globe – Without Leaving the Ground". Pop Mechanics. Hearst Magazines. p. 87.
10. ^ ^{a b} Murdo Morrison (25 June 2018). "Ceremonious simulator manufacturer strategies compared". FlightGlobal.
11. ^ Antoine Fafard (26 June 2018). "Analysis: Civil simulator fleet nears i,300 mark". FlightGlobal.
12. ^ ^{a b c} EASA CS-FSTD(A) Outcome 2
13. ^ Leonard Ross; Paul Slotten; Louise Yeazel (1990). "Pilot'south Evaluation of the Usefulness of Full Mission IFR Simulator Flights for General Aviation Pilot Training". Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research. 1 (2). doi:x.15394/JAAER.1990.1024. ISSN 1065-1136. Wikidata Q112800809.
14. ^ "Navy CPT". www.navair.navy.mil. U.S. Navy. Retrieved 4 August 2014.
15. ^ "14 CFR Appendix D to Part 141 4.(c)".
16. ^ European Helicopter Safety Team (EHEST). "Advantages of Simulators (FSTDs) in Helicopter Flight Training" (PDF). European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). p. 6. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
17. ^ David J Allerton (Dec 2010). "The impact of flight simulation in aerospace". The Aeronautical Journal. 114: half-dozen. doi:10.1017/S0001924000004231. ISSN 0001-9240. Wikidata Q112813532.
18. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} David J Allerton (2009). Principles of flight simulation. Wiley. doi:10.2514/4.867033. ISBN978-0-470-75436-eight. Wikidata Q112813340.
19. ^ Michael Male monarch; Stephen Lenser; D Rogers; H Carnahan (two Jan 2022). "Novice and experienced hoist operators in a helicopter hoist virtual reality simulator". International Periodical of Training Research. 20: 1–13. ISSN 1448-0220. Wikidata Q112805528.
20. ^ Karsten Hytten (November 1989). "Helicopter crash in water: Effects of simulator Escape training". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. eighty: 73–78. doi:10.1111/J.1600-0447.1989.TB05256.10. ISSN 0001-690X. Wikidata Q112805503.
21. ^ André Pinheiro; Paulo Fernandes; Ana Maia; et al. (2012). "Development of a Mechanical Maintenance Grooming Simulator in OpenSimulator for F-xvi Shipping Engines". Procedia Computer science. xv: 248–255. doi:10.1016/J.PROCS.2012.10.076. ISSN 1877-0509. Wikidata Q57592005.
22. ^ Francesca De Crescenzio; Massimiliano Fantini; Franco Persiani; Luigi Di Stefano; Pietro Azzari; Samuele Salti (1 Jan 2011). "Augmented reality for shipping maintenance training and operations support". IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 31 (1): 96–101. doi:10.1109/MCG.2011.4. ISSN 0272-1716. PMID 24807975. Wikidata Q87833678.
23. ^ FAA AC 61-136B
24. ^ FAA Ac 61-136A
25. ^ FAA CFR Role 60
26. ^ CAAC CCAR-60
27. ^ Air conditioning-61-136A Appendix 1 and 2
28. ^ 14 CFR Part 60, Appendices B and D
29. ^ fourteen CFR Part 60, Appendices A and C
30. ^ CS FSTD(H).200: Terminology
31. ^ Appendix 1 to CS FSTD(H).300, Appendix one to CS FSTD(A).300
32. ^ ^{a b} Baarspul, M. (1990) A review of flight simulation techniques. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 22, 1–20.
33. ^ Richard Fujimoto (December 2015), Parallel and distributed simulation, doi:10.1109/WSC.2015.7408152, Wikidata Q63321790
34. ^ Randy Pausch; Thomas Crea; Matthew Conway (Jan 1992). "A Literature Survey for Virtual Environments: War machine Flight Simulator Visual Systems and Simulator Sickness". Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. one (3): 344–363. doi:x.1162/PRES.1992.1.3.344. ISSN 1054-7460. Wikidata Q112822678.
35. ^ C. A. Ippolito; A. R. Pritchett (14 August 2000), Software architecture for a Reconfigurable Flight Simulator, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, doi:ten.2514/vi.2000-4501, Wikidata Q112822781
36. ^ ^{a b} Matthias Oberhauser; Daniel Dreyer (1 September 2017). "A virtual reality flight simulator for human factors engineering". Cognition, Engineering science and Work. nineteen (2): 263–277. doi:x.1007/S10111-017-0421-7. ISSN 1435-5558. Wikidata Q112822831.
37. ^ Turgay Aslandere; Daniel Dreyer; Frieder Pankratz (March 2015). Virtual hand-button interaction in a generic virtual reality flying simulator. 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference. pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/AERO.2015.7118876. ISBN978-i-4799-5379-0. Wikidata Q112826446.
38. ^ Markus Tatzgern; Cristoph Birgmann (March 2021). "Exploring Input Approximations for Control Panels in Virtual Reality". Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces: 1–9. doi:10.1109/VR50410.2021.00092. Wikidata Q112826551.
39. ^ Section 91.155 14 CFR Function 91 - Full general Operating and Flying Rules - FAA
40. ^ R. Barette; A. Morris; J. Baribeau (22 July 1985), A modern air combat dome visual system, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, doi:10.2514/6.1985-1747, Wikidata Q112840484
41. ^ Appendix one to CS FSTD(H).300, 1.3 Visual organisation, requirement b.three
42. ^ ^{a b} Brian Reno (xiv August 1989), Full field of view dome display system, Boston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, doi:ten.2514/six.1989-3316, Wikidata Q112790735
43. ^ Brent Cameron; Hooman Rajaee; Bradley Jung; Robert Langlois (May 2016), Development and Implementation of Cost-effective Flight Simulator Technologies, doi:ten.11159/CDSR16.126, Wikidata Q112812641
44. ^ Leonard G. Best; Don R. Wight; Philip W. Peppler (16 August 1999), M2DART: a real image rear-projection display, pp. 348–355, doi:10.1117/12.357610, Wikidata Q112840621
45. ^ Byron J. Pierce; George A. Geri (October 1998). "The Implications of Image Collimation for Flight Simulator Training". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Lodge Annual Meeting. 42 (xx): 1383–1387. doi:10.1177/154193129804202004. ISSN 1071-1813. Wikidata Q112793062.
46. ^ "EASA approves the first virtual reality (VR) based flight simulation training device". European Marriage Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 26 April 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
47. ^ Stewart, D. (1965–1966). "A Platform with Six Degrees of Liberty". Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. 180 (1, No fifteen): 371–386. doi:10.1243/pime_proc_1965_180_029_02.
48. ^ Appendix 1 to CS FSTD(H).300, 1.ii Motion system, requirement b.1
49. ^ Andrea 50. Sparko; Judith Bürki-Cohen; Tiauw H. Go (2010). Transfer of Training from a Total-Flying Simulator vs. a High Level Flight Training Device with a Dynamic Seat. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Briefing. doi:ten.2514/6.2010-8218.
50. ^ Peter John Davison. "A summary of studies conducted on the effect of motion in flight simulator pilot training" (PDF). MPL Simulator Solutions. Retrieved 12 November 2019.
51. ^ Beard, Steven; et al. "Infinite Shuttle Landing and Rollout Training at the Vertical Motion Simulator" (PDF). AIAA. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
52. ^ "DESDEMONA: The adjacent generation in move simulation" Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek Retrieved: 5 July 2012.
53. ^ Roza, M., G. Wentink and Ph. Feenstra. "Operation Testing of the Desdemona Motility Organization." AIAA MST, Hilton Head, S Carolina, 20–23 August 2007.

Bibliography [edit]

• Kelly, Lloyd L. every bit told to Robert B. Parke. The Pilot Maker. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1979, First edition 1970. ISBN 0-448-02226-5.

External links [edit]

• Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulations at NASA's Flight Research Centre past Gene L. Waltman
• The Art of Flight Simulation (Aersopace MEng Thesis on Flight Simulation)
• MiGMan's Flying Sim Museum, video game flight simulators from the 1970s to the present day

Airline Industry In The 1920s,

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_simulator

Posted by: hanselldientiong.blogspot.com

Share this post