Simulation Systems and Applications, Inc.
10460 Roosevelt Blvd., PMB #301, St. Petersburg, Florida 33716-3821 USA
+1 727-544-4673  +1 727-544-6154 (fax)  Toll free: +1 877-4SIMSYS (474-6797)

Simulation Systems

Aircraft Systems

Network Technologies

Search Site

Contact Us

Customer Feedback

Privacy Statement

Y2K Statement

Employment

Home

MAN–THE FOCUS OF THE TRAINING SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE

Dr. Hanns H. Wolff

Technical Director, Naval Training Device Center and Conference General Chairman

We at the Naval Training Equipment Center are very grateful that the Chief of Naval Education and Training authorized this Sixth NAVTRAEQUIPCEN/Industry Conference since it brings the Training Equipment Industry and the Naval Training Equipment Center together to further mutual understanding and interests.  As in past conferences, our aim is to promote the cooperation between the NAVTRAEQUIPCEN and Industry and exchange ideas on new training simulation technology.  With the goal of further improving military training programs, we will present to Industry the very significant changes that have occurred since our last conference and, last but not least, we will hear Industry’s problems in their relation to the NAVTRAEQUIPCEN.

As you remember, the Naval Training Equipment Center transferred from the Command of the chief of Naval Material to that of the chief of Naval Training, now the chief of Naval Education and Training, the very day our last conference started.  Since then we have gone through major reorganizations and reorientation.  To a large extent this has been due to the fact that in July 1972 the Naval Training Support command was established and became the direct Command of the Naval Training Equipment Center and that the Naval Training Support Command and other of its field activities meanwhile assumed several functions that had been previously the responsibility of the Naval Training Equipment Center.

The dust, I think, has by now sufficiently settled and we can give you an insight into our new modus operandi, which was naturally an impact on Industry’s interfacing with the NAVTRAEQUIPCEN.  It is therefore one of the goals of the conference to bring Industry up to speed on the new NAVTRAEQUIPCEN/Industry interface.

Another fact we like to get across to Industry is the steady trend to increase the NAVTRAEQUIPCEN’s responsibilities more and more beyond the plain acquisition of training devices.  For the NAVTRAEQUIPCEN is now involved in the whole training process, especially the optimization of the training cost for a large sector of a career-training program using the most advanced instructional technology.

For this purpose, we have to look at a larger training time span and develop and select that training methodology that provides us with the trained man under optimization of training cost and time, considering, of course, simultaneously all other restraining parameters.

Advances in training device technology play a major role in obtaining a better trained man, and this can be and have to be achieved even at an overall training cost reduction.

Latest training device technology in the form of adaptive systems has individualized the training syllabus and made it possible at the same time to increase the instructor’s effectiveness multifold.  Thus, we shortened simultaneously the training time required and achieved a more proficient Naval officer and enlisted man.

On the other hand there are many untouched or only barely touched areas that require our attention and effort.  For example, we have to replace more training that is presently conducted in the operational environment with training in training devices and equipment, an effort that is often limited by the present state-of-the art in training device technology.

Foremost among the unresolved technological problem is the wide-angle visual environment display problem that has so far not yet found a satisfactory economic solution.  Though some progress has been made, especially in the computer-generated image area, much more effort is required in the wide-angle visual environment display area.  For here major progress will widen the application of synthetic training and improve the training economy significantly.

What we are looking for are wide-angle visual displays for all kinds of weather conditions, for day and for night operation for the purposes of training takeoff and landing on carrier and on shore facilities, for training traffic pattern and approach flying, for formation and acrobatic flying, for weapons delivery both air-to-ground and air-to-air; in short, for all aviation exercises that demand the visual observation of the environment.  We are, of course, aware of the fact that such a diversity of requirements cannot be met in a single system in the near future unless a major breakthrough in the state-of-the-art occurs.

Another area of technology that deserves an all-out effort is the software problem for our training device computer systems.  For several years we have hoped that it would be possible to develop a special training device computer language that would reduce the cost of programming and reprogramming of training device computers–a language that would enable a large group of people without extensive training to undertake programming effectively.  It seems though that the progress in the art of computer technology is always running ahead of the software methodology.  For example, during the last few years we have had a rapid increase in the application of minicomputers and an increased appreciation of the values of hybrid computer systems, both areas that still require highly skilled specialized personnel for optimal programming.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

SYSTEMS APPROACH TO SIMULATOR TRAINING FACT OR FANTASY

Brian A. Drissell

Program Development Manager

United Air Lines, Flight Training Center

Over the past few years, there have been major advances in airplane simulator design, in fidelity improvement, programming power, motion and visual systems, and advanced training features.   The airlines, working closely with the FAA and the manufacturers, have been able to make use of these improvements by training and checking more than ever in the simulator–because it can be done effectively.  There has also been a great deal of manpower and money expended to provide modern, state-of-the-art, simulator training.  Yet, all of these efforts and improvements notwithstanding, we are still making only limited use of the training capabilities of the simulators, and most of our simulator training is conducted along traditional lines.

This is not a condemnation of what we are doing, because our training is good.  In many respects, airline flight crew training is leading the way in the industrial training community.  But it should be apparent to everyone involved that we have an important area of training and checking that deserves attention.  There are many areas of potential improvement, and they should be explored.  However, if the status quo is maintained, then we may at least be able to save considerable money in simulator acquisition by not buying those features and systems that are seldom used.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

MOTION SIMULATION ENHANCEMENT–

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESEARCH G-SEAT SYSTEM

Gerald J. Kron

Simulation Products Division, The Singer Company

The methods by which man learns have long been the subject of research; the interim findings, observations, and theories have often been the subject of much controversy and argument.  Fundamental agreement exists, however, that man must have contact with his environment; he must be aware of the stimuli about him and he must interpret them and act upon their informational content.  An important portion of learning and training research, then, is directed at obtaining and understanding of how man relates to, and with, his environment.

Man’s sensory systems are the interface between him and his environment; through these systems travel the raw information used in learning and in the maintenance of task proficiency.  Considerable effort has been expended on assembling a knowledge of the operation of the various sensory systems, with various degrees of success, depending upon which sensory system is under consideration.  The knowledge derived from the visual sense, for instance, appears to be more precise, more formalized, and less subject to question than that derived from the vestibular sense and, to a greater degree, the body awareness sense.  Simulation, a technique employed for training, depends heavily on the role sensory systems play in the learning process.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

PROSPECTS, PROBLEMS, AND PERFORMANCE–

A CASE STUDY OF THE FIRST PILOT TRAINER USING CGI VISUALS

Captain Francis E. O’Connor, USN

Commander, Training Air Wing TWO, Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas

and

Dr. B. J. Shinn

Manager of Advanced Technologies Engineering

General Electric Company

and

Dr. W. Marvin Bunker

Consulting Engineer in the Advanced Technologies Engineering Laboratory

General Electric Company

The Device 2F90 was procured by the Navy in 1969 as an Operational Flight Trainer for use in conjunction with the TA4J aircraft.  The typical Operational Flight Trainer at that time was designed to provide complete systems simulation in an instrument flight environment.  Thus, the device found application as an instrument trainer and as an emergency procedures trainer.  In actual practice, syllabus application was predominantly in the instrument training area (90 percent).

In late 1971 in response to increasing pressure to achieve some “payoff” in the use of simulators by achieving some reduction in syllabus flight hours, a series of evaluations, in the instrument training portions of the chief of Naval Air training Advanced Jet Syllabus was undertaken.  In very general terms, these evaluations confirmed the efficacy of the 2F90 as an instrument trainer and projected incremental reductions in student flight time through use of simulation.  To date student flight time in the instrument syllabus has been reduced from 44 hours to 22.5 hours with consequent substantial savings in the aircraft operating costs associated with the training of student naval aviators.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

A RADAR PREDICTION CONSOLE FOR

PRE-MISSION PLANNING, TRAINING AND BRIEFING

Robert A. Heartz

Project Engineer of the IR&D Digital Radar Display

Simulation Development Programs at

Apollo and Ground Systems

General Electric Company

The objective of a Radar Image Prediction System is to provide a pilot or navigator with a predicted image of his enroute and target area radar display so that he can become familiar with significant terrain and cultural features as depicted by his sensor system, plan his course, and practice various approaches for achieving his mission.  The requirements of a Radar Image Prediction System are:

1)      Develop a near-real-time realistic display simulation from a database that defines terrain and cultural features.

2)      Provide a capability for quickly correlating the computed, or simulated, image with graphic (chart or photographic) data of the same area.

3)      Provide an on-line capability to update or modify the computed image based on graphic source information.

4)      Provide an interactive display capability, so that the operator can immediately view changes in the database.

The Radar Image Prediction System that meets the above requirements is illustrated in the block diagram of figure 1(a).  The digital database defines terrain elevation and cultural features by lines that are reflectivity boundaries and elevation features (ridge and valley lines) and by target points.  The image processor reads the digital database and converts the elevation and reflectivity data to a real-time radar image that is displayed on a PPI.  The Interactive Data Base Generator provides the capability to correlate the computed image and to modify the data base. 

A sketch of the basic laboratory Radar Prediction system is shown in figure 1(b).  A 16k core memory that stores the database and the high-speed image processor that generates the radar PPI display are mounted in one six-foot equipment rack.  The Interactive Data Base Generator includes the displays, the operator controls, and the logic required for generating or changing the database.  The computer image is displayed on the vertical CRT.  The image of the map or photograph is displayed on the horizontal light table.  A 45-degree beam splitter combines the two images.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

IMAGE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN COMPUTED VISUAL SCENE SIMULATION

Dr. W. Marvin Bunker

Consulting Engineer in the Advanced Technologies Engineering Laboratory

General Electric Company

When a simulation or training application requires simulation of visual scenes, a number of techniques can be used.  Wide use has been made of pictures–both still and movies–and of models, with optics alone and with servoed television cameras for display on raster-scan devices.  During the past decade Computer Generated Images (CGI) have seen increasing application to this requirement.

With CGI the scene exists as stored numbers in the system memory.  If standard TV rates are used, the computer generates 30 new scenes per second, based on the simulated relationship between the environment and the observer for each scene.  It immediately follows from this basic concept that the operator or trainee has no constraints on his path or rates of motion or acceleration.  Multiple moving models in the scene can be accommodated.  Special effects, such as blinking or directional lights, limited visibility simulation, explosion and disappearance of a target, etc., can be included.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

DESCRIPTION AND INITIAL EVALUATION OF A COMPUTER-BASED INDIVIDUAL TRAINER FOR THE RADAR INTERCEPT OBSERVER

Joseph W. Rigney, Director

Douglas M. Towne, Assistant Director

D. Kirk Morrison, Research Associate

Louis A. Williams, Psychological Research Associate

Behavior Technology Laboratories, University of Southern California

The Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) is a critical element in a complex man-machine relationship which emerges ultimately as a weapons system.  The complexity of the basic delivery device, the aircraft, and the high speeds at which it usually operates create operational situations that tax the maximum performance capabilities of a single individual or pilot.  Extended range weapons, such as missiles, and high aircraft speeds render visual methods of target acquisition virtually useless, and have led to the development of sophisticated electronic devices for this purpose.

The pilot is the first element in this weapons control system, maintaining the precise operation of the aircraft.  The RIO is the second integral element of control, analyzing data concerning target activity, and transmitting to the pilot action control commands based on these data.

The RIO is engaged in multiple tasks during an air intercept.  He must:

1)      manipulate the electronic equipment in a manner that maximizes its capabilities as an information source;

2)      gather and integrate electronic data with previously learned data and procedures;

3)      decide upon actions that may be performed within the operational limits of the aircraft to meet weapons launch criteria

4)      produce accurate verbal commands that constitute adequate control functions.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

AN INTERACTIVE FACILITY FOR THE MODIFICATION AND UPDATE OF DIGITAL RADAR LANDMASS SIMULATION DATA

Roger Dahlberg

Digital Systems Engineer

Singer Simulation Products Division

Radar landmass simulation for training until very recently was implemented using data stored on a film plate and transmissively read by a CRT/photomultiplier arrangement.  These systems, typified by the AN/APQ-T10/T11 trainer built for the USAF, have the basic limitation that the data is not easily modified or updated.  The generation of a new film plate can take six months.

With the advent of new digital memory technology it has become practical to store radar landmass data digitally and produce video by means of special digital processing.

One of the most significant advantages to an all-digital system is the fact that the radar landmass data can be changed.  Update from new cartographic information to incorporate the latest and most accurate radar-significant information and to correct previous errors is easily accomplished in an all-digital system, and presents the most compelling reason for having such a system.  A second reason is the ability to selectively delete or modify targets and navigation checkpoints, either in a real tactical situation or as a training exercise.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

A NEW CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS FOR

NAVAL TRAINING EQUIPMENT CENTER

CDR. Troy E. Todd, United States Navy

Director, Plans and Programs Department

Naval Training Equipment Center

It is often observed that the only constant thing in life is change.  In keeping with this truism, during the past year the Center has undergone a management overhaul.  Emerging from this process is a new concept of operation, which places the Director of Plans and Programs firmly in control of the management of the Center’s Technical Program.

For many years the Center has recognized the various disciplines required producing a successful simulator or product.  Accordingly, each project was assigned to a team composed of a Training specialist, engineer, Human Factors Specialist, Integrated Logistic support specialist and a Contract Specialist.  The combined contributions of these teams along with their counterparts in industry have produced a long list of successful simulators and have contributed greatly to the readiness of the fleet.

Each of these specialists represented a segment of line management.  There was no one truly at the helm.  As the project progressed from phase to phase one specialist or another became the dominant figure within the team.  The team concept still plays a vital role in the new concept but the facilitating type of decision-making common to line organization management has given way to a matrix-type organization.