A Flight Centered Approach to Assess Dynamic Flight Simulation and Simulator Force Cueing Fidelity

With an aging aircraft fleet and an ongoing period of combat, the USAF must look more to ground based simulation to supplement flight training. Objective measures are needed, however, to insure that a training environment with limitations in force cueing adequately transfers back to flight. Systems Technology, Inc. proposes to leverage the significant past research with a flight-centered approach to produce effective qualitative and quantitative measures of simulator force cueing fidelity as it relates to tactical aircraft flight training. To demonstrate feasibility of the proposed approach, a preliminary test version of the Real-Flight software will be created and assessed via a limited piloted simulation evaluation. A set of candidate quantitative metrics derived from available flight test data will be incorporated into the initial version of the software. Pilot control stick inceptors of varying fidelity will be used as exemplar force cueing devices. If practical, a motion-based simulator will also be introduced into the demonstration plan. A successful demonstration of Real-Flight will expose differences between the force cueing devices and identify the mechanization that best represents the flight training experience. This work will set the stage for the comparative flight test/simulator evaluation to be conducted in Phase II.   BENEFIT: This proposed program will lead to a Real-Flight software tool box that will provide a means to assess simulator force cueing fidelity as it relates to tactical flight training. STI expects that Real-Flight and related derivatives will find application throughout the DoD as a means to assess the effectiveness of dynamic flight simulation and force cueing in fixed-wing, rotorcraft, and ground vehicle training simulators. The assessment methods and metrics may also be used in the training simulator procurement process to ensure maximum return on investment in terms of training effectiveness versus procurement cost.