The optimum training balance debate: Live Flying vs. Synthetic Training.

08 May 2024

In the world of aviation training, the debate over the balance between live flying and simulation training continues to spark discussions among industry professionals. Some argue that live flying can never be replaced by simulation, while others believe that simulation can effectively replace certain aspects of flying. So, how can organisations optimise this balance to ensure the most effective training solutions? Let's explore this question from both an organisational and individual learner perspective.

Flying is undeniably expensive, and organisations strive to deliver training in the most cost-effective manner without compromising operational effectiveness. The key challenge lies in ensuring that cost-effective training methods also instil the necessary skills required for demanding flying scenarios.

Developing habits and skills takes time and practice. Through repetitive experiences, our brains form memories that enable automatic and instinctive responses. Think about how habits influence our actions, such as reaching for a nonexistent switch in a new car or instinctively moving your foot to the clutch when driving an automatic vehicle.

In the past, organisations aimed to keep aircraft training costs to around 10% of the operational platform's flying hour cost. With the advent of simulation technology, training can now be conducted at a fraction of that cost using tools like augmented reality, virtual reality, desktop trainers, and proven learning techniques like mental practice.

To achieve optimal training effectiveness, it's crucial to strike a balance between cost, time, and the fidelity of learning. After all, training without meaningful learning outcomes is futile. Learning is a personal journey, influenced by individual preferences and styles. Assessing a learner's ability to recall tactics, techniques, and procedures is a common method of evaluating learning progress.

However, traditional assessments may not capture the full extent of a learner's understanding, as they only measure the final output, not the underlying thought processes. True learning is reflected in the ease and clarity of recall, as demonstrated by the ability to seamlessly execute tasks and adapt to varying conditions.

To eliminate subjectivity in determining the live/synthetic training balance, organisations can turn to performance analysis tools like the 2nABLE System. By objectively evaluating learning performance, organisations can tailor training approaches to optimise learning outcomes effectively and efficiently.

In conclusion, achieving the optimum balance between live flying and synthetic training requires a thoughtful consideration of cost, learning effectiveness, and individual learning styles. By prioritising meaningful learning experiences and leveraging innovative training technologies, organisations can ensure that their training programs equip learners with the skills and instincts needed for success in the aviation industry.