What is Negative Training, Exactly in flight simulators?

If you've spent any time around flight simulators, you've likely heard the term negative training thrown around more than once. But what is it, exactly?

Over many decades, flight simulators have revolutionised pilot training, offering indispensable benefits that include cost-effectiveness, enhanced safety, and greater accessibility compared to training exclusively in real aircraft. However, simulator training is not without its challenges. One of the most significant, yet often not fully understood, issues is negative training. Addressing negative training is vital because it directly impacts the safety and effectiveness of pilot training, with potential consequences ranging from minor operational issues to serious accidents and even loss of life.

What is Negative Training?

Negative training refers to the acquisition of knowledge or behaviours during training that are inaccurate, incorrect, or should not be performed in real flight situations. It is also sometimes described as "negative transfer of training," where performance in a new context becomes worse for those who received specific training compared to those who did not. Essentially, training can unintentionally introduce incorrect information or invalid concepts that could decrease aviation safety. The development of these incorrect practices requires remediation and, in the worst case, can lead to serious accidents and loss of life.

Why Negative Training Occurs

Several factors contribute to the occurrence of negative training:

Inaccurate Simulator Configuration

A primary cause is when a simulator's configuration, including its avionics, does not precisely match that of the actual aircraft. This mismatch can lead trainees to learn behaviours that are incorrect for real-world operations. This is one of the reasons why managing and controlling a simulator's configuration is one of the most critical elements for a simulator support organisation to conduct.

Limited Simulator Fidelity

Simulators with issues around their fidelity in replicating flight models and avionics, especially in extreme or unusual conditions, have more potential to induce negative training. While most simulators excel at standard flight conditions, some fall short in simulating more extreme scenarios, ones that have the potential to lead to accidents, potentially teaching incorrect behaviours and increasing risk.

Hardware Limitations (especially in VR-based systems)

The emergence of head-mounted display (HMD) based simulators introduces specific hardware challenges that can cause negative training.

Insufficient Headset Resolution

Low-resolution displays in virtual reality (VR) headsets can make virtual control panels and gauges unreadable. Distant objects may appear pixelated or disappear entirely, hindering precise training and making consumer devices less than ideal for demanding simulator tasks. This is not a significant issue in professional grade VR technology simulators.

Excessive Visual System Latency

Delays between a pilot's action and the visual response in the headset are a major cause of simulator sickness. And, this delay between visual and vestibular or proprioceptive feedback can directly cause negative training. This issue is present on traditional full flight simulators as well.

Improperly Adjusted Inter-Pupillary Distance (IPD)

Incorrect IPD settings, often ignored or unsupported by consumer-grade headsets, significantly contribute to simulator sickness.

Lack of Tactile Feedback

The absence of physical interaction with controls in a fully virtual environment limits the development of crucial muscle memory. This is a significant reason why the adoption of VR hasn't yet replaced the need for full flight simulators with their larger more expensive visual systems.

Reliance on Generic Controllers

Using handheld controllers with buttons unlike those in a real aircraft can lead to learned behaviours that are not reflective of real-world flying. This is typically only an issue on low-end devices.

Challenges in Trainee Assessment

Without accurate eye-tracking, instructors struggle to determine a trainee's precise gaze, making it difficult to assess if they are observing the correct instruments or scanning the horizon effectively. Some VR headsets offer high quality gaze tracking to mitigate this problem.

The "Self-Taught" Trap

Students who heavily rely on consumer-grade flight simulators (e.g., MS Flight Simulator or X-Plane) for initial learning may develop habits like over-correction or over-controlling flight controls. These habits do not translate well to the nuances of flying a real aircraft, increasing the risk of leading to detrimental behaviours during actual flight training.

Principle of Primacy

This psychological principle highlights that the first things learned are often deeply rooted. If initial flight simulator training instills incorrect habits or information, it becomes very difficult and costly to unlearn them later in actual aircraft training.

Debated Training Methodologies

Another concern in simulator training, particularly for upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT), is the practice of intentionally allowing situations to "go wrong" or "going beyond alarms" in a simulator. While some argue this allows trainees to experience critical cues and sensations of unsafe situations, others fear it might cause negative transfer by teaching pilots to suppress preventive actions, leading to delayed or incorrect responses in real-life emergencies.

Why Simulators Remain Essential (Despite the Risks)

Despite the potential for negative training, flight simulators are indispensable for several reasons:

High Operating Costs

Training exclusively in real aircraft is prohibitively expensive, with operating costs reaching tens of thousands of dollars (or more) per hour for high-performance aircraft.

Limited Aircraft Availability

The number of advanced aircraft, such as fighter jets or commercial airliners, is often insufficient to meet extensive training demands efficiently.

Safety for Adverse/Extreme Conditions

Simulators provide a safe environment to practice dangerous manoeuvres or emergency scenarios (e.g., multi-engine failure) that would be too risky to perform in actual flight.

Procedural Knowledge

Simulators are highly effective for mastering procedural aspects of flight, such as checklists, flows, briefings, and instrument approaches, which are critical for airline pilots and military aviators alike. But the over-reliance on procedural training presents its own risks. Traditional training, often involving extensive procedural tasks and checklists, can create "procedure monkeys" instead of problem-solvers. An example is the frequent training of engine failure before V1 (take-off abort), making the pilot's response automatic. However, in a real-life tire burst scenario, 90% of pilots incorrectly aborted take-off, which is dangerous because limited brake capacity means the aircraft cannot stop before the runway end.

Mitigating Negative Training

Mitigating negative training requires a multi-faceted approach, combining advanced technology with refined training methodologies:

High-Fidelity Simulation Systems

Accurate Replication

Flight simulation systems must be meticulously designed to accurately replicate the cockpit and flight dynamics of the specific aircraft, minimising the risk of incorrect behaviours being learned. This is where a significant amount of the cost of a level D simulator comes from - the development of flight models.

Advanced Display Technologies

Incorporating modern, advanced display technologies ensures the required resolution and visual clarity for precise training, allowing trainees to see critical markings, lights, and objects at realistic visibility ranges, thereby preventing negative training. Visual system resolution is less of an issue with modern simulators as projection technology has rapidly increased over the last decade or so.

Specialised VR-Based Solutions

For head-mounted display (HMD) training, enterprise-class headsets offer some solutions:

Human-Eye Resolution

Ensures accurate visibility of objects from instrument panels to distant aircraft, even over a mile away. Displays with this level of acuity are commonplace nowadays.

Low-Latency Mixed Reality

This technology supports interaction with physical controls and environments while immersed in VR, which aids muscle memory development, reduces simulator sickness, and allows the use of real cockpits and instruments.

Hand Tracking

This technology enables trainees to use their own hands and natural gestures, eliminating the need for generic VR controllers and enhancing immersion.

Built-in Integrated Eye Tracking

Such systems allow accurate monitoring and recording of a trainee's gaze for precise assessment, helping instructors confirm correct instrument scanning.

Automatic IPD Adjustment

This feature automatically optimises visual presentation when a user puts on the headset, dramatically reducing instances of simulator sickness.

Appropriate Use of Simulators

As responsible aviation professionals, we need to ensure that we're using simulators primarily for procedural knowledge, checklists, and instrument flying, rather than for developing "muscle memory" for control inputs that may not transfer accurately to real aircraft. This is a simple way to reduce the risk of negative training on lower fidelity devices.

Diverse Stall Recovery Training Methodologies

Research suggests that effective stall recovery training should incorporate both:

Self-Induced Stalls (Dynamic Training)

Allowing pilots to fly the aircraft into a stall themselves enables them to observe and recognise pre-stall and stall cues, which improves their ability to distinguish stall from non-stall situations. This dynamic training improves the recognition of stall cues.

Sudden "Handover" Scenarios (Freeze Training Concept)

Starting simulations at a progressed state of stall, requiring immediate responses to alarms, helps pilots practice quick sense-making and automatic responses, and can reduce experienced time pressure in unanticipated events. Training should ideally use dynamic, rather than static, situations for realism. While the "Dynamic group" in a study showed better stall recognition, they also experienced more time pressure in surprise post-tests, suggesting that self-paced training alone may not prepare pilots for externally paced real-world events. Therefore, a combination of both dynamic, self-induced stalls and sudden handover scenarios is advisable.

Regulatory and Industry Advancements

Following significant accidents, such as Colgan Air Flight 3407 in 2009, regulatory bodies like the NTSB and FAA have issued recommendations and implemented rule changes (e.g., FAA Advisory Circular 120-109A and Part 121.423) to improve simulator fidelity and training for fully developed, unexpected stalls. These changes have demonstrably enhanced safety for Part 121 operators, with no airline pilot having an accident due to stall mismanagement since 2009.

Final thoughts

Flight simulators are powerful tools, but their effectiveness hinges on a thorough understanding and active mitigation of negative training. By combining advanced, high-fidelity simulation technology with well designed and diverse training methodologies, (including both self-induced and sudden handover scenarios for UPRT) we can continue to ensure that pilots minimise the risk of acquiring unsafe and ineffective skills. This proactive approach is essential for continuously enhancing aviation safety and pilot competency worldwide.

Q&A

What does negative training mean?

Negative training refers to the learning of knowledge or behaviours during training that are inaccurate, incorrect, or should not be performed in real flight situations.

What is negative training in aviation?

Negative training in aviation refers to the acquisition of knowledge or behaviours during training that are inaccurate, incorrect, or should not be performed in real flight situations. It is also defined as a situation where learning in a training environment results in the degradation of performance in practice.

Essentially, negative transfer of training occurs when performance in a new context or task becomes worse for those who received a particular training compared to those who did not. Training can unintentionally introduce incorrect information or invalid concepts, which could actually decrease, rather than increase, aviation safety.

Negative training often occurs when two tasks or variants of a task are very similar in the training context but differ in essential aspects. This includes situations where there is surface similarity (tasks look similar) but structure dissimilarity (underlying rules, goals, controls differ). For example, habits learned in one aircraft type may inappropriately transfer to a new aircraft type with a physically similar cockpit but slightly different procedures.

Even with increasing sophistication in simulator training, the growing volume of such training makes addressing potential negative outcomes important.

What are the disadvantages of simulation training?

Simulation training, while highly beneficial for pilot development, presents several disadvantages, primarily stemming from the concept of negative training. This refers to the acquisition of inaccurate or incorrect knowledge and behaviours that can degrade performance in real flight situations and potentially lead to serious accidents. However, the benefits significantly outweigh the drawbacks in that using a simulator is highly cost effective and safer for things like emergency procedures training (e.g. engine failures).

Negative transfer from simulator training has been identified as a potential contributing factor in significant aviation accidents, such as American Airlines Flight 587 in 2001, where an unrealistic simulator scenario might have provided pilots with negative training on how to respond to wake turbulence, causing them to develop inappropriate control strategies. Similarly, the 1996 Airborne Express DC-8 crash and the 2009 Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash highlighted how misleading "negative" simulator training for stall recovery contributed to pilots making incorrect control inputs in real emergencies.

What is an example of negative transfer of learning in aviation?

Negative transfer of learning in aviation occurs when knowledge or behaviors acquired during training are inaccurate, incorrect, or should not be performed in real flight situations, leading to degraded performance or even accidents.

American Airlines Flight 587 (2001) Accident

An Airbus A300 crashed after encountering wake turbulence. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified characteristics of the aircraft's rudder system design and elements of the operator's Advanced Aircraft Manoeuvring Program as contributing factors. Specifically, an unrealistic simulator scenario "might have had the unintended consequence of providing pilots with negative training in how to respond to wake turbulence," causing the pilot to develop control strategies that were effective in the simulator but inappropriate or dangerous in an actual airplane. This simulator exercise could have led the first officer to incorrectly associate wake turbulence encounters with the need for aggressive upset recovery techniques.