National Academies Press: OpenBook

Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report (2015)

Chapter: 2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies

« Previous: 1 Air Force Simulation Needs
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

2

How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies

OTHER MILITARY USERS

Maynard Zettler, director of research and engineering, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, discussed the Navy’s simulation activities (Box 2-1). The important focus was on the Naval Aviation Enterprise’s (NAE’s) initiative to improve training by optimizing live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) simulation to match the Navy’s recent thrust of integrating its warfighting capability across mission areas, platforms, sensors, weapons, and kill chains. Mr. Zettler explained that this new integration concept differs from prior “stovepipe” approaches and has support at top levels of the Navy.

INDUSTRY USERS

Speakers from Lockheed Martin and Boeing presented simulation approaches of the large U.S. aircraft manufacturing industry (Boxes 2-2 and 2-3), whereas CAE, Inc., and FlightSafety International presented approaches of smaller but important simulation entities (Boxes 2-4 and 2-5). These presentations covered a range of simulation activities and concepts, including small, head-mounted visual displays; large and complex simulators; pilot training and training for other skills (e.g., maintenance); architectures having “the world” embedded in an individual platform simulator; and “world-centric” architecture from which individual platform simulators extract common data (e.g., weather, terrain).

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER USERS

Jeffery Schroeder, chief scientific and technical advisor, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Bimal Aponso, chief, Aerospace Simulation Research and Development Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), presented the simulation approaches from these two large agencies of the U.S. government (Boxes 2-6 and 2-7). Mr. Aponso offered that NASA has a substantial aeronautical simulation capability, which can be made available at cost to outside users (e.g., for simulating aspects of national airspace) but is no longer central to the agency’s main mission of space. Mr. Aponso noted the difficulty of retaining relevant skills in aeronautical simulation activities at NASA. Finally, he discussed NASA’s development and testing of an LVC architecture for researching integration of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace System (NAS). As part of this development, NASA is characterizing latencies throughout the LVC using a realistic NAS air-traffic simulation and is developing improved communication protocols to integrate the L with the VC components. Mr. Aponso offered that this work may be useful to the Department of Defense (DoD).

In contrast, Dr. Schroeder explained that the FAA oversees U.S. civil aviation in which pilot training and checking is done predominantly in simulators, and the agency sees no reason to change this paradigm. Dr. Schroeder’s video clip at the workshop showing pilot reactions to the introduction of highly unusual events into simulator routines was of special interest.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-1

Naval Aviation Enterprise


Maynard E. Zettler, Director–Research & Engineering, NAWCTSD

The Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) is undertaking multiple initiatives to improve training optimization and proficiency. Central to many of those initiatives is the utilization and integration of Live/Virtual/Constructive (LVC) simulation to augment and improve training. The “LVC in Naval Aviation Training” presentation will focus on the NAE’s operational context and integration across the LVC domains. The ultimate objective is the optimized use of LVC to improve the NAE’s Integrated Warfighting Capability across mission areas, platforms, sensors, weapons and kill chains. The presentation will address the LVC Training Requirements Path and the process for defining not only what needs to be trained but also utilizing the science of learning to understand the most effective methods to accomplish the training and sustain the requisite skills. The challenge is not just within a given platform but across platforms and the complementing entities in the kill chain(s). Representative examples of current initiatives will be provided, coupled with a discussion on investment gaps and barriers to success.

BOX 2-2

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training


Rick Boggs, Senior Fellow

Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force ATARS II program have engaged in successful human performance engineering. For the past four years there has been an activity centered around Training Transformation that has made some very good progress. With the entry of the F35 into the fleet comes a challenge of Live Virtual Constructive environments. Lockheed Martin is working on a LVC environment known as ACES to address the inclusion of 5th-generation aircraft. Today’s training requirements require a 360 degree visual display that is expensive to purchase and operate. I think the requirement should be adjusted to allow for the new man-wearable technologies. These new technologies save considerable expenses and do not reduce the quality of the visual display to the air crew.

The last speakers of the workshop were from the University of Toledo and the State University of New York at Binghamton, and they presented simulation approaches in the medical field (Box 2-8) and an academic modeling approach (Box 2-9), respectively.

FOLLOW-ON REMARKS

After commenting at the meeting, Sharon Conwell, senior research psychologist, Warfighter Training Systems and Performance Assessment Branch (RHAS), Air Force Research Laboratory, made a special effort to provide written comments regarding the medical presentation.

Thank-you for allowing AFRL/RHAS (Wink Bennett and I) to attend the LVC AFSB study discussion. I found the meeting most informative. You requested that I provide a sentence or two for your study regarding my comment about the 88th Med Group at WPAFB (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base). According to cost research done by Mr. Jacob Arnst at the 88 MDSS/SGSRM and reported by Col Penelope Gorsuch, Deputy Commander of the 88th Medical Group (88MDG/CD), when comparing the 88th medical group to a comparable private sector medical facility, the medical group loses 38 cents on every dollar. Some portion of the 38 cents is more than likely related to training/readiness costs. Every hospital has significant training costs, but military treatment facilities have additional readiness training costs above those of a private sector hospital. The researchers at

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-3

The Boeing Company


Steve Monson, Chief Architect, Technical Fellow-Simulation and Training

We are in most certainly in a “do more for less” environment, with a need to provide more effective training for reduced costs. Leveraging innovations in commercial technologies and other industry investments like Integrated—Live Virtual Constructive (I-LVC) simulation require a partnership with the Air Force to maximize utility and benefits. Industry is well equipped to research, develop, and tailor technologies for training, and the Air Force is equipped to evaluate and transition these technologies to acquisition programs.

Leveraging Commercial Technologies

Low-cost commercial immersive visualization technologies such as Oculus may not be ready today; however, the commercial sector is working to solve many of the issues of importance to training such as resolution, field of view, and tracking latency. Research is needed to determine the qualities required for particular uses of low-cost, commercial virtual-reality technologies in training. It is recommended this research be performed in parallel with commercial technology development.

Commercial gaming technologies provide an engaging entertainment environment, rewarding the player for demonstrated competencies—many of which are learned within the game. To benefit from learning afforded by approaches used in gaming, research is needed to identify training tasks most appropriate to utilize game technologies to impart transferrable skills.

Performance Assessment

A wealth of performance data can be captured—physiology data, trainee input data, system performance, outcomes, etc. This data can be analyzed against various performance metrics and utilized as an instructor aid or for instructorless training across multiple ranges of device fidelities to provide feedback on performance or adapt the learning to the student.

Integrated—Live Virtual Constructive

The vision for I-LVC includes the entire kill chain, including C2 and national assets. Both live red and blue assets can be supplemented with virtual and/or constructive participants. All participants appropriately sense and communicate with other participants seamlessly across the L-VC boundary, with the ability to launch air and ground constructive weapons with real-time scoring and kill removal. Instructors have the ability to assume the role of constructive threats to be able to introduce the human element when required. A constructive environment server provides a robust environment, and ground-based tools provide the common operating picture and debriefing capability.

Boeing’s foundational integrated LVC research began in 2007 with a live F-15E, a virtual F-15E, and constructive red air in a blue verses red engagement. Progressive development and demonstrations added multiple capabilities for both air-to-air and air-to-ground on the F-15E and expanded to the F/A-18E/F. As a result, industry is ready to deliver I-LVC solutions today. It is recommended the Air Force aggressively pursue an acquisition program to realize demonstrated benefits. Research is needed to determine modifications to live training to realize the maximum benefit from I-LVC, along with targeted developments of credible constructive opposing force and sensor models for certain training tasks.

AFRL/RHAS believe that distributed LVC training can bring down those training costs and improve training effectiveness just as LVC distributed mission operations training has brought down training costs and improved training effectiveness in the aviation community.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-4

CAE, Inc.


David Graham, Senior Technical Fellow

CAE, Inc., is a publicly held, independent, medium-sized company with products and services focused on the creation of domain expertise using modeling and simulation. Our business is roughly half military and half “civil,” and our business is also roughly half supplying products and half providing services. CAE is honored to have the opportunity to provide our industry perspective on promising new approaches to employment of simulation in the U.S. Air Force Training Environment.

The CAE presenter will briefly review CAE’s current products and services in use by the Air Force and other end users and respond to the questions about what we are doing now and what the shortfalls of current simulation industry offerings and technology are.

CAE’s view of what we would like to be doing and what it will take to achieve our ambitions will be collected in two broad categories: “not-so-thin” simulation clients and “thin” simulation clients.

“Not-so-thin” is one way to describe high-performance, full-flight simulators that make up a very large part of CAE’s product and service offerings to both civil and military customers. Promising new approaches will focus primarily on increasing the capability to interoperate federations of heterogeneous simulators to improve the capability to use simulators for mission sets that AMC accurately describes as “not optimal” in their presentation abstract. The CAE presenter will explore the role of open, consensus-based standards to help achieve the promise that rapidly advancing technology can potentially deliver.

CAE believes there is a very promising future in the use of simulation viewed through “thin” clients: zero-deployment web-browsers on a wide variety of hardware and software platforms. New learning sequences that expose training audiences to simulation at various levels of detail and complexity are becoming possible and offer the promise of low-cost, low-risk, rapid expansion and connectivity of elements of mission management components to distributed mission training and rehearsal events. In addition, the capability to “bring the high-performance simulation software to the desktop or mobile device” offers the promise of new, dynamic, highly engaging learning sequences in what we have traditionally considered “ground school.”

The presentation will conclude with a discussion of collaboration between U.S. Special Operations Command and the Joint Staff / J7 in the JLVC 2020. A brief examination and demonstration of the J7 Cloud Based Terrain Generation Service will serve to integrate the points previously discussed and support specific recommendations by the CAE presenter.

BOX 2-5
FlightSafety International


Nidal Sammur, Director of Engineering

FlightSafety International has long believed the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained crew. To that end, we have continually invested in technology and training innovations that provide the highest possible fidelity training to our customers, both commercial and military. In support of that objective, FlightSafety is focused on designing, manufacturing, and sustaining high-fidelity training devices intended to offer the most realistic immersive training environment possible. Our presentation will address the current state of technology in simulation, explain initiatives we are currently pursuing, and posit future areas for innovation, all with an eye towards continuing to enhance the realism of the training experience of our customers.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-6

Federal Aviation Administration


Jeffery A. Schroeder, Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor Flight Simulation Systems

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates simulators for pilot training and uses simulators to train air traffic controllers, site new control towers, design airspace procedures, and develop unmanned aircraft systems requirements. This presentation focuses on simulators for airline pilot training only. Piloted simulation represents the largest and most sophisticated component of the FAA’s responsibility in simulation, and these simulators must comply with federal regulations before they are used in pilot training. Airline pilots fly the simulator once or twice per year for about three days. Most of that time covers mandated training items, but an airline typically adds specialized training deemed important based on analysis of their operations. Once a year, pilots must pass a proficiency check in the simulator. The accident rate in the United States suggests that this process is satisfactory, as the rate continues to decrease with the continued increase of simulation use.

Naturally, these simulators still have limitations. This limitations fall into two categories: (1) the device is not capable, or (2) the device is capable, but is not used for the purpose. The latter category is not a limitation of the device itself, but of its application. Instances in the first category include (a) fully simulating the environment outside of the aircraft such as air traffic control and surface vehicles; (b) the lack of in-flight surprise; (c) motion cueing differences, especially normal and lateral load factors; (d) poor fidelity in wake vortex encounters; (e) stall modeling; (f) physical effects of icing; (g) stability and control fidelity near envelope edges; and (h) the landing experience is still different from flight. Items in the second category include (i) not demonstrating some key pilot-vehicle interface functions and (ii) simulating events in conditions that differ from those that typically occur in flight (e.g., go-arounds, stalls).

Besides trying to improve the above limitations, additional simulator enhancements may further improve aviation safety. These enhancements include (1) being able to get yesterday’s incident into training instantly to prognostically prevent tomorrow’s accidents; (2) developing scenarios that invoke grey decision making and that expose common human errors; (3) defining the relation between simulator fidelity and training value; (4) adjusting the challenges posed in simulation to be commensurate with the trainee’s skills; (5) relying more on frequency-domain measures to ensure that the simulator and aircraft have similar flying qualities; and (6) better modeling of slippery runway conditions.

As far as technologies, approaches, and techniques required to satisfy this to-do list go, much of it is simply time, money, and the will power to do it. Many of the improvements are evolutionary instead of revolutionary. Probably a lot can be done with standardization so that improvements can be made more collectively, rather than in an individual piecemeal approach. However, incentives to standardize and the enthusiasm for doing so have not been self-evident. Also, the pressure to keep training costs manageable necessitates that hard decisions be made on what not to do if more is added to a training session.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-7

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Bimal Aponso, NASA Ames Research Center

NASA Ames Research Center is home to several high-fidelity research flight and air-traffic control simulation facilities which, together with an experienced workforce, produce high-quality research data and findings that have proven to be applicable in the real world. These assets include the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), Crew Vehicle Systems Research Facility (CVSRF), Future Flight Central (FFC) air traffic control tower simulator, and several air-traffic control (ATC) simulators.

The VMS combines a high-fidelity simulation capability with an adaptable simulation environment, enabling customization for numerous human-in-the-loop research applications. The distinctive feature of the VMS is its unparalleled large-amplitude, high-fidelity motion capability. In over 30 years of continuous operation, the VMS has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge in a range of disciplines directly benefiting several aerospace programs and flight safety, including the design and development of flight control systems for the Joint Strike Fighter, Space Shuttle Orbiter, and rotorcraft. It continues to be used for researching new vehicle configurations, vehicle control and safety, transfer-of-training, etc., by NASA, other government agencies, and industry.

The CVSRF includes two motion-based flight simulators: a Boeing 747-400 full-flight simulator and the reconfigurable Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS). These simulators are primarily used to research air-traffic management concepts and procedures, advanced navigation and avionics concepts, and cockpit human factors. FFC is a full-sized control tower simulator with a 360-degree external field-of-view display system and reconfigurable system architecture. FFC and the ATC simulators are used to test air-traffic management automation and decision support tools and demonstrate their feasibility in a realistic environment prior to technology transfer for implementation in the National Airspace System.

To support integrated simulations and flight tests for NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System Project, NASA developed a distributed test environment incorporating live, virtual, constructive (LVC) concepts. Development of the software enabling the LVC is conducted primarily at the Distributed Simulation Research Lab at NASA Ames. The LVC components provide the core infrastructure supporting simulation of UAS operations by integrating live and virtual aircraft in a realistic air-traffic environment. This provides the ability to conduct tests more efficiently by promoting the use of existing distributed assets. The LVC infrastructure was used in several human-in-the-loop simulations to evaluate acceptance of Detect and Avoid advisories used by UAS pilots to maintain well clear of other virtual traffic and to negotiate maneuvers with air-traffic control. It is currently being used to support testing of self-separation algorithms between unmanned and manned aircraft in live flight. Further simulations with more comprehensive air traffic scenarios mixing live and virtual aircraft is planned.

In the current fiscal environment, maintaining and upgrading these high-fidelity simulation assets and retaining the skilled workforce necessary to meet future research needs is the primary non-technical challenge. Technical challenges include the ability to develop and participate in LVC-distributed simulations more quickly and with less cost expenditure on developing customized solutions. Potential solutions include determining and establishing interface definition standards for interacting simulation environments covering simulation models, communication protocols, information technology security, etc. Also, an improved understanding of the benefits of simulation and levels of simulation fidelity required for program risk mitigation and training effectiveness would better inform funding decisions on these assets.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-8

The University of Toledo Interprofessional Immersive Simulation Center

Pamela Boyers, Executive Director, University of Toledo Interprofessional Immersive Simulation Center; Gerald Zelenock, Professor and Chairman, Department of Surgery, University of Toledo College of Medicine

The University of Toledo Interprofessional Immersive Simulation Center (UT-IISC) is a highly advanced 65,000 sq. ft. simulation facility purpose-designed to transform the training of health care providers and develop new methods for improving human performance and effectiveness. With a unique clustering of three highly integrated, state-of-the-art simulation centers, the UT-IISC provides the ideal venue in which medical/industry partnerships are created for the purpose of developing and testing of new processes, products, and devices. In addition, UT-IISC has a wide range of subject matter experts available to advise, support, and help test the development of new products—including the potential of partnering to conduct human factors research and develop autonomous health systems.

A Tri-Center Simulation Training Concept

The UT-IISC houses three distinct, yet integrated, simulation centers:

• A Modeling and Simulation Center that incorporates 3-D and Virtual Immersive Reality (VIR) and holographic technology with a 5-sided light-emitting diode (LED) VIR, a large, curved LED CAD Wall, a Holographic Theater, Display Wall, and Industry Collaboration Spaces.

• An Advanced Simulation Center that houses real hospital equipment and human patient simulators in a wide variety of simulated healthcare settings—including an Elliptical Virtual Hospital that incorporates an Intensive Care Unit, Labor and Delivery Room, Trauma Suite, and a Pediatric Unit around a central control tower. The human patient simulators are computer “driven” through medical scenarios from this control room that is surrounded by one-way glass. This design enables the simulation scenarios to be easily viewed from a raised vantage point. All virtual clinical environments have cameras and microphones installed in the ceilings to record each training session. Critical events that occur during the LVCEs are tagged by the simulation capture system and participants review the exercise in adjacent debriefing rooms utilizing audio and visual recordings—along with the physiological data (clinical responses) of the human patient simulators.

• An Advanced Surgical Skills Center containing 17 surgical bays and procedural rooms is equipped with advanced surgical equipment that includes up-to-date instrumentation and a wide range of surgical scopes. The center operates in partnership with surgical instrumentation companies who help support the learning and research activities by providing equipment and staff for procedural skills and product development workshops.

From both the training and research and product development perspectives, it is possible to use all three centers to achieve the desired objectives. For example, one can “fly through” a human heart using the VIR in the Modeling and Simulation Center, then practice conducting a “Code Blue” as a team member in the Advanced Simulation Center, followed by conducting cardiac procedures in the simulated surgical suites in the Advanced Surgical Skills Center.

Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and human factors research, the UT-IISC supports the development of procedural and communication skills through the ongoing development of reliable, valid methods of competency assessment. The ultimate goal for the UT-IISC is to focus on how simulation and LVC exercises in replicated clinical settings can improve the outcomes of care through enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of individuals and teams—ultimately reducing the costs of healthcare.

To transform the education of health professionals, the UT-IISC is utilizing a convergence of advanced simulation technology to help break down barriers (stove pipes/silos) between professions by promoting collaborative practice and using simulated clinical scenarios to enhance the performance of individuals and teams. The overarching mission of the UT-IISC is improving healthcare outcomes—with a strong emphasis on improving patient safety. The wide spectrum of modeling and simulation modalities available in the UT-IISC place the University of Toledo in a position to utilize “disruptive technologies” to transform the medical learning and research environment. Through the provision of interdisciplinary simulation and clinical simulation experts, the UT-IISC welcomes collaboration with many disciplines, including the U.S. military, in improving the outcomes of training and the design and testing of new products, processes, procedures, and systems.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×

BOX 2-9

State University of New York at Binghamton


Frank Cardullo, Professor of Mechanical Engineering

The presentation aims to illuminate some of the flight simulation technology areas that present potential obstacles to successful pilot or other crewmember training. The simulator is discussed as a complex, dynamic, man-machine system in which the human operator is central to achieving the goals of exercise. It will treat technology issues of dynamic system simulation, human perception, and behavior in the context of a control theoretic approach. A major advantage of this approach is that, if applied appropriately, it will yield quantitative metrics of the simulator as a training device. It has been demonstrated that when certain anomalies occur in a flight simulator, such as visual or motion artifacts or the absence of certain cues necessary for proper execution of the task, that pilot performance metrics may remain constant but control behavior is altered. The discussion will include an introduction to some of the signal-processing techniques that can be used to quantitatively analyze pilot control behavior. Some examples will be presented, such as in the case of uncompensated delay in the various dynamic systems and the Objective Motion Cueing Test recently developed that quantifies in the frequency domain the effects of the motion cueing algorithm on the total motion system dynamics. The talk will conclude with some suggested areas of development.

Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 How Simulation is Currently Used by Military, Industry, and Government Agencies." National Research Council. 2015. Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21674.
×
Page 24
Next: 3 Committee Member Observations on Adapting Additional Simulation Techniques for the Air Force »
Opportunities for the Employment of Simulation in U.S. Air Force Training Environments: A Workshop Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $39.00 Buy Ebook | $31.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Simulators currently provide an alternative to aircraft when it comes to training requirements, both for the military and for commercial airlines. For the U.S. Air Force, in particular, simulation for training offers a cost-effective way, and in many instances a safer way in comparison with live flying, to replicate real-world missions. Current technical issues related to simulation for training include simulation fidelity and multi-level security, among others, which will need to be addressed in order for the Air Force to take full advantage of this technology.

The workshop held in November, 2014 examined the current status of simulation training, alternative uses, current and future technologies, and how the combination of simulation and live training can improve aircrew training. The scope of the workshop focused on technologies and practices that could be applicable to high-end aircraft simulations.
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!