Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Categories
- Congress
- Defense
- General News
- Green IT
- Health
- Health IT
- Homeland Security
- IBM suspension
- Industry
- Info Security
- Intelligence
- International
- IT management
- Law
- OMB
- Oversight
- Policy
- Politics
- Privacy
- Procurement
- Program Management
- Project management
- Risk management
- Security
- Social networking
- Spending
- State and Local
- Technology
- Telecommunications
- Tip Thursday
- Virtual World
- Web
- White House
- Wireless
- Workplace
What's happening in the federal IT community
By Wednesday, October 8, 2008 | 4:44 PM
An article in The New York Times today outlines how the FAA is relying on simulators to train the next generation of air traffic controllers. The agency needs to train thousands of controllers before nearly two-thirds of the 15,000 air traffic controllers leave work by 2017 because they will have reached the mandatory retirement age of 56. The young controllers are placed in a realistic simulation of an airport tower. According to the article:
Aircraft first appear as tiny dots against blue sky, clouds or stars. On the ground, drivers of maintenance trucks ask permission to cross a runway so they can fix a lighted sign. A click of the instructor’s mouse can shift the time of day, and change the weather — from rain to hail or cloudy to clear. To make the simulations as unpredictable as in the real world, some pilots ignore instructions.
FAA officials hope that that “the simulators will cut training time 20 percent to 60 percent,” according to the article. With average cost for training an air traffic controller at $74,000, that could save tens of millions of dollars – maybe hundreds of million – over the next ten years. That certainly is a good return on investment, but what about improved or at least comparable performance of the air traffic controllers? Hopefully, there is some metric that shows simulator training is at least as good as the traditional training controllers received. It would be tragic if it turned out to be less effective.
This lack of research into the efficacy of virtual training and simulation seems shortsighted. The Air Force has been training pilots in simulators for years. Maybe they have some research that shows how simulations are superior or comparable to traditional flight training.
It wasn’t long ago I wondered about the value of virtual worlds in improving training of technology employees at the tire manufacturer Michelin Group.
The same problem occurred when educators, in the late 1990s, began buying up computers for the classroom, believing the high-tech devices would lead to smarter kids. They spent millions on computers without first thoroughly researching if they in fact made students score better on tests. The conventional wisdom up until a couple of years ago was that they didn’t.
But that may be changing. A New York Times essay published in August mentions student performance has just begun to improve because of computers in the classroom. The reason: Teachers have changed they way they teach to incorporate the computers. Maybe there’s a lesson here for using simulators? Just how much have FAA instructors or Air Force flight instructors changed the way they teach air traffic control techniques and flying a jet fighter?
Anyone know if training simulators have led to better, or at least as good, results?
Comments
What was the point of this article? Do a little research and you will find information on a number of ATC simulation studies including one that was done by the FAA before this acquisition. Simulation systems like this are used by a huge number of ATC agencies, to name a few civillian agencies, Canada, Brazil, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Hungary Australia, United Arab Emirates, Spain, South Africa, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerlands, Hong Kong, Vietnam and dozens more.
This is lazy jounalism.
Gary | Friday, October 17, 2008 | 4:30 PMThe question conflates a number of things that must be considered. The simulation may be a very realistic simulation of the real world but unless the curricula is designed to teach the things that the controller, pilot, armor crew member etc needs to know and the training does it the best simulation in the world is not very useful.
The question you ask is a lot like the ones the budgeteers ued to ask about military flight simulators and about how many flight hours would be substituted to pay for them. My answer when I built the first night carrier landing trainer for the Navy was NONE. But if this machine is used to teach one nugget aviator one thing that one time in his career keeps him from flying into the spud locker I just paid for the trainer. Any other silly questions?
Leo | Friday, October 10, 2008 | 10:41 AMIn terms of military training, the issue is perhaps less on the computer simulation's effectiveness when compared to traditinal methods of training as in the case of avaition training. It is more a factor of economics.
The US Army Armor School can put every Soldier trainee in a tank at each station (driver, gunner, etc.) and never burn one liter of fuel. That is significant considering the number of soldiers to go through Armor School training.
In terms of aviation, pilots can experience life-or-death situations that cannot be done in an actual aircraft without risk of the deaddly consequences.
Simulation also allow division and corps commanders and their staffs to engage virtual forces across wide fronts. Again, such exercises are not affordable (or practical) using real units.
With 18 years of active air traffic controller work and 19 years in FAA management I can say computer sumulators DO work! In the simulation environment, we can set up any scenario we want to. We can simulate complexities from the very basic to 'saturation' problems. We have hired professionals to act as the 'pilots' for problems. And we use live controller and training teams to analyze simulation. When the controller is in the OJT phase, we can use the simulators to set up, review, and correct problem areas. In a nutshell, the simulators are a realistic, excellent tools which have been a boon to effective controller training.
pineapple | Thursday, October 9, 2008 | 9:03 AMYou say "Hopefully, there is some metric that shows simulator training is at least as good as the traditional training controllers received". Then in the next paragraph you jump to the conclusion that "This lack of research into the efficacy of virtual training and simulation seems shortsighted." If you are basing this statement on some knowledge you should cite it, otherwise it does not follow.
Paul | Wednesday, October 8, 2008 | 9:20 PM