Subjective Fidelity Assessment of Rotorcraft Training Simulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the potential applications of a Simulation Fidelity Rating (SFR) scale, to support the subjective assessment of rotorcraft training simulators. In this paper, the SFR scale has been used to examine pilot sensitivity and subsequent task strategy adaptation to simulator transport delay variations in the Precision Hover manoeuvre. The current FAA AC 120-63 and JAR-FSTD H simulator qualification standards requires a transport delay of no more than 100ms to meet the most stringent Level D criteria. The study has highlighted that the majority of the evaluation pilots indicated that transport delays of this order would compromise the utility of the simulator to provide training for the Precision Hover manoeuvre. For an additional 100ms transport delay, the pilot's SFRs ranged from Level 1 fidelity (simulation fit for purpose) to Level 3 fidelity (simulation not fit for purpose). The factors influencing the SFRs awarded, and their impact on the application of the SFR scale, are discussed in this paper. The methodology detailed in this paper has potential for more objective quantification of the utility of rotorcraft training simulators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".