In both civilian and military aviation training much reliance is placed upon expensive flight simulators. The decision to resort to a simulator for training instead of the actual equipment is justified by arguments such as:

Greater utilisation of equipment as training will not be interfered with by factors such as unsuitable weather conditions or unserviceable equipment.

Lower purchase and operating costs of simulators in comparison with the actual equipment.

Increased safety and controlled levels of stress when training is undertaken when using a simulator.

Minimal operational and environmental disturbance.

The need for hard data regarding the contribution made by flight simulators during aircrew training has been widely recognised by many authors, including Caro, Rolfe and Roscoe, and many complementary strategies or experimental paradigms for obtaining such data have been advanced, ranging from the conduct of carefully structured and controlled experimental studies to the collation of data obtained during on-going training programmes.

Within the military context at least two current developments point towards the need for additional data regarding the effectiveness of flight simulators. The first is the increasing potential of complex full mission capable simulators, where developments particularly in the visual area, are extending the ability of simulators to replicate the most demanding segments of fast-jet combat missions including low level tactical manoeuvring and target acquisition and weapon delivery.

Of all the factors taken into account when justifying the use of flight simulators cost is most important. As one airline administrator put the case in 1970, ‘If simulators did not save the airlines money they would not exist however valid the other reasons are, we would have no difficulty in convincing ourselves that training in the air was better in every way’. In their 1977 study of the cost effectiveness of flight simulators for military training Orlansky and String could find only 30 studies between 1950-1977 which attempted to measure training effectiveness in a controlled and effective manner. This paper directs attention to one particular method of measuring training effectiveness, namely, the Incremental Transfer Effectiveness Function (ITEF).

In the few moments that I have, I would like to discuss in very general terms the role of information feedback in aircrew training and make the case that there is a need for improved computer-based debriefing aids. I am sure that there is little disagreement today that flight simulators offer a range of benefits. Such things as cost savings, reduced energy expenditure, safety and availability have been mentioned again and again. However, the most important benefit to be derived, namely training, is often-times overlooked. The assumption is often made that a good simulator, in terms of its fidelity, will lead to good training. While there are certainly examples of this, there are also cases of good simulators providing poor training because of improper utilisation, and cases of poor simulators providing very good training. The key appears to be in the proper utilisation of the simulator as a trainer, which in turn, is partially based on the simulators instructional features.

The phrase ‘Zero-Right Time’ was very much in everyone's mind at the last symposium held here earlier this year. Since the Edwin Link trainer in 1929 the technology of flight training devices has relentlessly progressed towards achieving this ultimate in pilot training. The flight training devices in current use in the civil and military spheres are extremely sophisticated and complex; to the layman they are little short of magical. However, during the past 50 years one aspect of flying training through simulation appears to have been overlooked; namely, the training of instructors to make the most effective use of these complicated devices.

The purpose of this talk is to describe some of the more simple aids used in the training of aircrew and to illustrate how they can be integrated with flight simulators and aircraft to form a systematic approach to aircrew training. Of course, low cost aids do not solve all training problems, neither can they replace the aircraft or the flight simulator for many tasks, but they are worth examining for reasons which will appear in this paper.

As a start, it might be useful to look at a typical flight simulator and note some of its characteristics as a teaching device.

The microprocessor revolution can in no way be described as a ‘silent’ revolution, unusually perhaps, a technological advance has caught the imagination of the mass media, who are fond of postulating its effect on our lives.

Within the Air Transport industry much coverage has been given to the development of ‘visibly’ different avionic equipment such as cathode ray tube (CRT) flight instrumentation, active control technology and flight management systems. These advances have been made possible solely on account of the microprocessor, which has, in addition, also revolutionised existing avionic disciplines.

Morgan and Saunders have shown that highly peaked velocity profiles can be produced in a pipe downstream of a partial gauze screen, a screen pierced by a central hole. By systematically varying the ratio of hole size, d, to pipe diameter, D they obtained peaked profiles with different values of profile peakiness û/ū.

The investigation showed that two different velocity profiles with the same value of û/ū. could be produced from a particular gauze, one from a screen with d/D <0·5 and the other with d/D>0·5.