مقالات

مقالات زیر، از بین مقالاتی که در کنفرانس MODSIM World 2017 ارائه شده برای مطالعه شما عزیزان انتخاب شده است.

کنفرانس Modeling and Simulation (MODSIM) World Conference به صورت سالانه برگزار شده و سال 2017،  دوره دهم برگزاری کنفرانس مذکور بود. دوره یازدهم آن نیز در سال  جاری میلادی (2018) در تاریخ 24-26 آوریل در آمریکا برگزار خواهد شد. این کنفرانس برای هر سال خود یک تم یا شعار سال انتخاب میکند.

1- مقاله Effectiveness_of_AR_and_VR

2- مقاله Harmonized_Air_Missile_Space_Training_Environment

3- مقاله System_of_Systems_Approach_for_the_Development_of_Next_Generation_Modular_Simulation-Based_Training_Systems

4- مقاله Realism_in_Modeling_and_Simulation_with_Implications_for_VR_AR_and_IE

Source:http://www.modsimworld.org/conference-papers/2017

متن لینک

Simulator Levels

Introduction

Understanding different categories and approvals for flight simulator and training devices is somewhat complex and can be confusing. Customers often ask us to explain the differences. On this page we attempt to summarise categories and levels and have provided some useful links.

Regulatory Bodies & Useful Links

There are four regulatory bodies relevant to users in Australasia:

USA - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - www.faa.gov

• Part 60 - Flight Simulation Training Device Initial And Continuing  Qualification And Use
• National Simulator Program (NSP)
• AC 61-136A - FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices And Their Use For Training And Experience
• AC 120-40B - Airplane Simulator Qualification
• AC 120-63 - Helicopter Simulator Qualification

Europe - European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) - www.easa.europa.eu

• Certification Specifications For Aeroplane FSTD's
• Certification Specifications For Helicopter FSTD's

Australia - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - (CASA) - www.casa.gov.au

• CASR Part 60 - Synthetic Training Devices
• Manual Of Standards (MOS) Part 60
• Australia recognises FAA and EASA approved devices

New Zealand - Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) - www.caa.govt.nz

• New Zealand recognises FAA approved devices

Definitions

Full Flight Simulators (FFS)

A FFS is a high fidelity full size replica of a specific type or make, model and series aeroplane flight deck which can represent the aeroplane in ground and flight operations. A FFS has a visual system providing an out of the flight deck view, and a force cueing motion system (at least 3 axis). It is in compliance with the minimum standards for FAA or EASA FFS Qualification. Airlines are the predominant users of FFS's. 

• FAA Definition - A replica of a specific type, make, model, or series aircraft. It includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft operations in ground and flight conditions, a visual system providing an out-of-the-flight deck view, a system that provides cues at least equivalent to those of a three-degree-of-freedom motion system, and has the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device as described in part 60 of this chapter and the QPS for a specific FFS qualification level.
• EASA Definition - A Full flight simulator (FFS)’ means a full size replica of a specific type or make, model and series aircraft flight deck/cockpit, including the assemblage of all equipment and computer programmes necessary to represent the aeroplane in ground and flight operations, a visual system providing an out of the flight deck/cockpit view, and a force cueing motion system. It is in compliance with the minimum standards for FFS qualification.
• FAA & EASA classify FFS's into four levels:
  • FAA / EASA Level A - 3 axis motion / night visuals
  • FAA / EASA Level B - 3 axis motion / night visuals / ground handling simulation (lowest level of heli sim)
  • FAA / EASA Level C - 6 axis motion / night & dusk visuals / dynamic control loading / higher fidelity
  • FAA / EASA Level D - 6 axis motion / night, dusk & day visuals / dynamic control loading / highest fidelity

Flight Training Device (FTD) / Flight Navigation Procedures Trainers (FNPT)

Both the FAA and EASA utilise the term FTD to classify certain flight training devices other than FFS's.  EASA has a further classification referred to as FNPT. An example difference between a FTD and FNPT under EASA is a FTD requires a fully enclosed flight deck, whereas a FNPT does not. Note FAA & EASA FTD "Levels" are not the same.

• FAA:
  • FTD Definition: A replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft flight deck replica. It includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in ground and flight conditions having the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device as described in part 60 of this chapter and the qualification performance standard (QPS) for a specific FTD qualification level.
  • The FAA groups FTD's into seven levels (levels 1, 2 & 3 are no longer issued)
    • FTD Level 1 (not used for new devices / various grandfathered devices)
    • FTD Level 2 (not used for new devices / various grandfathered devices)
    • FTD Level 3 (not used for new devices / various grandfathered devices)
    • FTD Level 4 - basic cockpit procedural trainer / often a touch screen procedural trainer
    • FTD Level 5 - specific class of aircraft [S/E, M/E etc] / meets a specific FTD design criteria
    • FTD Level 6 - high fidelity / aircraft specific / specific aerodynamic modelling
    • FTD Level 7 - helicopters only / all controls & systems modeled / vibration system / visual system
• EASA:
  • FTD Definition: Flight training device (FTD) means a full size replica of a specific aircraft type’s instruments, equipment, panels and controls in an open flight deck/cockpit area or an enclosed aircraft flight deck/cockpit, including the assemblage of equipment and computer software programmes necessary to represent the aircraft in ground and flight conditions to the extent of the systems installed in the device. It does not require a force cueing motion or visual system. It is in compliance with the minimum standards for a specific FTD level of qualification.
  • EASA FTD Classifications:
    • FTD Level 1
    • FTD Level 2
    • FTD Level 3 - helicopters only
    • FNPT Definition: Flight and navigation procedures trainer (FNPT) means a training device which represents the flight deck/cockpit environment including the assemblage of equipment and computer programmes necessary to represent an aircraft or class of aeroplane in flight operations to the extent that the systems appear to function as in an aircraft. It is in compliance with the minimum standards for a specific FNPT level of qualification.
    • EASA FNPT Clasifications:
      • EASA FNPT Level I
      • EASA FNPT Level II
      • EASA MCC (MCC is an FNPT device able to be used for Multi-Crew Coordination training)

Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD) / Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) or BITD as referred to by EASA.

ATD's could be referred to as entry level devices other than FFS's and FTD/FNPT's. In the USA BATD's and AATD's have in effect replaced FTD Level 1, 2 & 3 devices (generic devices). As FTD Level 1,2 & 3 classifications are no longer issued, this style of device now classified as either BATD or AATD if it meets the respective qualification standard.

• FAA
  • The FAA no longer issues approvals for GTD, PCATD, or Level 1, 2 or 3 FTD's. Existing devices retain their approval. The FAA now categorises Aviation Training Devices (ATD) as either Basic (BATD) or Advanced (AATD).  BATD & AATD's must have a Qualification Approval Guide (QAG) and meet FAA design criteria.
  • ATD Definition - An Aviation Training Devices (ATD) is a training device, other than a full flight simulator (FFS) or flight training device (FTD), that has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the Administrator. In general, this includes a replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft cockpit. It includes the hardware and software necessary to represent a category and class of aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in ground and flight conditions having the appropriate range of capabilities and systems installed in the device as described within this advisory circular (AC) for the specific basic or advanced qualification level.
  • AATD Part Definition - Provides an adequate training platform for both procedural and operational performance tasks specific to the ground and flight training requirements for Private Pilot Certificate, instrument rating, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certificate, and Flight Instructor Certificate per parts 61 and 141.
  • BATD Definition - 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 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 61 and 141.
• EASA
  • EASA only has one classification for this kind of device and it is called a Basic Instrument Training Device (BITD)
  • BITD Definition:  Basic instrument training device (BITD)’means a ground-based training device which represents the student pilot’s station of a class of aeroplanes. It may use screen based instrument panels and spring loaded flight controls, providing a training platform for at least the procedural aspects of instrument flight.
  • Note: Helicopter devices cannot be approved as a BITD.

متن لینک

مقاله آشنایی با مفهوم شبیه سازی و کاربردهای آن در صنعت و آموزش 

مقاله (1)

متن لینک

مقاله آشنایی با رویه توسعه نرم افزار تولید تصویر در شبیه سازهای آموزش پرواز 

مقاله (1)

متن لینک

H.J. Abma and A. Maij

Abstract
Recent developments in military training simulation technology enlarge the number of aircrew training solutions that can be deployed to reach desired tactical training outcomes. It is expected that despite current budget constraints, the importance of simulation as a training means for military training grows in the coming years. The spectrum of training devices for tactical training has grown rapidly. On the low end of the continuum desktop trainers are becoming more important for higher order (team) training tasks. On the high end of the spectrum – besides live training – Distributed Mission Training (DMT), Embedded Training (ET) and Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) training are becoming realistic options for tactical team training. Given the increase of the number of training solutions for military tactical training, the question arises which mix of training environments are best suited to reach tactical training objectives?

This paper presents a user-centered method for the selection of tactical training environments for the different weapon systems of the Royal Netherlands Air Force. The method supports tactical and weapons instructors, and squadron staff in the choice of training means for a specific training syllabus. Furthermore it provides a framework for specifiers and buyers to determine the specifications for the acquisition of training means. The method is based on the use case approach for designing software (Cockburn, 2001) and aligns with the competencybased aircrew training design approach as presented by Van der Pal and Abma (2009). The paper describes the underlying constraints and demands, and presents the seven-step method for the selection of realistic training environments for tactical aircrew training. The methodology will be illustrated with a process of specifying the needs for a multi-ship, multi-type helicopter simulation capability.

متن لینک