V-22 Simulator Relies on Commercial Technologies

Lower Costs, New Capabilities Derived from Elements of Boeing, Delta Programs

By J.R. WILSON
Special Correspondent

The V-22 Osprey training simulator will bring new capabilities and lower costs to the Marine Corps aviation training program, due largely to the use of commercial technologies. Based on FlightSafety International's commercial simulator technology, the V-22 simulator has avoided the long development periods and high costs common to simulation technologies based on military specifications.

In addition, the Corps has given top priority to funding for V-22 training, enabling officials to change their technology even before changes are made in the actual aircraft. Typically, changes to trainer technologies have trailed upgrades to the aircraft, creating difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions for pilots.

"Harnessing commercial strategies and putting proven technology on the concrete is a different way of doing business" relative to other training programs that begin with binders that are three inches thick, and filled with detailed military specifications, said Lt. Col. Ken Fancher, V-22 training Integrated Product Team leader at the Naval Air Systems Command program office. "Prioritized training first in this program, with funding to keep it current with the aircraft, also is new. It's a progressive inclusion of things we find in the engineering development and flight test program" for the V-22 aircraft.

Built by FlightSafety International Simulation Systems Division, Broken Arrow, Okla., the V-22 simulator utilizes software written by Bell Helicopter Textron, Fort Worth, Texas, which is partnered with Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, Patuxent River, Md., as prime contractor on the V-22. FlightSafety will build two versions of the V-22 simulator, including 20 MV-22 simulators for the Marine Corps and 8 CV-22 simulators for the Air Force.

Both models will encompass commercial technologies from a variety of commercial and existing military programs. Training officials say this decision is a key element of their ability to cut training costs. Previously, most training simulators were custom designed for each type of aircraft.

"We're not a group of inventors, said Brad Smith, the MV-22 simulations team leader for the Naval Air Systems Command. "We're trying to focus on maximizing the use of existing technology. A lot of procurement communities find it challenging to build capability on time and on budget. We took FlightSafety's Millennium simulator design, the same motion based solution they offer for the Boeing 777, bought an off-the-shelf image generator (IG), reused databases already in the inventory, then tuned the system for night vision capability and integrated our tactical environment.

In addition, the scheduling system was modeled partly on one used by Delta Air Lines; and the curriculum approach is based on the Air Force's C-17 Globemaster program, with the help of Aviation Training Consulting of Altus, Okla.

"We believe this is the first program to take this approach to the extent we have. Instead of inserting ourselves into their design process, we simply asked if what they had available would work for us," said Smith.

Four Marine and two Air Force simulators will be mounted on full motion platforms. The rest will be static, but otherwise identical. The Marines will use full-motion for initial pilot training, with static versions at various bases for follow-on skills maintenance.

Fancher says years of experience have shown a full-motion platform is not necessary beyond initial pilot training.

"We've found experienced pilots can't tell the difference," he said. "There is a secondary motion system in each of these [static] devices and you get the same visuals. There are some subtle differences, especially at maximum performance takeoff, and trained pilots will do actual instrument checks and check rides in the motion devices."

Priority funding for the simulator effort is key to its ability to stay ahead rather than behind the V-22 aircraft program. V-22 Block A changes, such as upgrades to the flight controls and cockpit, were integrated into the simulator in June 2003. The first Block A production aircraft was not delivered to the Marine Corps until October 2003. The next production aircraft is scheduled for delivery in January 2004. But any modifications to the aircraft will be replicated in the simulator more than 30 days in advance of delivery. The simulator uses some actual flight equipment, including the V-22 mission computer and digital map, enabling software changes to the aircraft to be immediately loaded into the simulator.

"Historically, the simulation effort chased the airplane in a never-ending path," said Terry Brehn, integrated product team leaders for aircraft training devices at Bell. "We took an evolutionary approach. We implemented freeze dates. If the aircraft changed after that date, we would not react to it but would provide the device to that point. Then the next device would be built to the latest configuration and kits provided to update the earlier simulator."

The simulation program's concurrency group is tied directly into the Bell tiltrotor engineering database in Fort Worth and Boeing's Triple Lab in Philadelphia, where various versions of the software are tested prior to flight test.

"We actually help each other­advances on the simulation side help the engineering side and vice versa," Brehn says.

In another significant change for the military, fully 55 percent of the V-22 training syllabus will be in the simulators. Other aircraft training programs have called for up to 25 percent simulation, but problems with fidelity­the simulator's accurate replication of the aircraft­often have reduced that to less than 10 percent. This sometimes has forced the military services to use operational aircraft for training. Fancher estimates the cost of training a pilot the old way at more than $1 million, compared to about $450,000 per student with the V-22 approach.

Dave Sullivan, Boeing's integrated product team leader for training, said that high fidelity between the simulator and operation aircraft can generate big savings for the Marine Corps. "When you have that, you can base more of the [training] syllabus in the simulator. That means fewer operational aircraft are needed for training. He estimates savings of $3.9 billion because fewer production V-22s are needed, and about $3.1 billion for maintenance and support services, personnel, and fuel for those aircraft.

While much of the simulator is based on commercial software, FlightSafety did venture into new territory with the development of new technologies to make the simulator compatible with the Marine Corps' night vision goggles and forward-looking infrared capability.

"Every instrument and control, including the instructor station, had to be compatible [with night vision goggles], which is a very difficult thing," said Paul Hancock, FlightSafety's V-22 simulator program manager. "There can be absolutely no light in the cockpit when the pilots are on goggles. That's something we'd never done before and it took a lot of effort to bring it up to that standard."

Another challenge was to create realistic visual models of the terrain that pilot trainees "fly" over. "We took the generic Marine/Air Force model and enhanced it considerably, so we now have a database that is very, very realistic, said Hancock. "Our next big endeavor is to provide mission rehearsal capability for the special ops guys. That means having a visual database that is very accurate and up-to-date, so we have to provide the tools to generate those databases in a very short period of time."

Brehn, the team leader at Bell, says the visual system was the closest the program came to pushing the state of the art.

The simulator effort was affected by the two-year grounding of the Osprey following two fatal crashes in 2000. A Blue Ribbon Panel report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, questioned whether there was adequate data in the simulator to model autorotation or to replicate the loss of controlled flight resulting from a high rate of descent, pushing the aircraft into what is known as a vortex ring state. Program officials say those concerns have now been addressed, although not necessarily in the manner envisioned by the panel report.

Vortex ring state is a collection of mathematics on the interaction of the rotor system and the environment, said Smith, and not something that can be inserted into the simulator. The best approach is to train pilots to avoid high-rate-of-descent situations, just as commercial pilots are taught to avoid extreme weather. "There is a new mindset in terms of training­a protection state­that says 'don't go near vortex ring state,' " Fancher says. "We will look at the recovery steps, so if you have that one remote instance where prevention doesn't work, you still have that recovery capability."