Flight Simulations (Usefulness)

L

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name
Display name:
LJ Savala
Hey guys I know it can't compare to real flying but how useful are the PC based flight sims? I know they are very fun but with rudder pedals and a yoke can they be useful training tools?
 
They CAN be very very useful training tools, when integrated into a course of instruction so that you learn what you're supposed to without interfering with stuff you need to learn in the airplane.

They're useless for the kinesthetic (physical feelings) part of flying. They're terrific for teaching VOR navigation, and can be used for aeronautical decision making scenarios as well.

If you don't have an instructor who has made them a part of his teaching, then I suggest you do not use them before you solo, and you have in your head and body a firm understanding of how a real aircraft flies in the real world.
 
Since Tim & Ron are probably two of the most excellent instructors (midlifeflyer is another) believe them.

I use a flight sim when I'm going on an XC someplace I haven't been before, just to see what the geography, airspace, etc. is like. Run the sim at 4x or more on the boring parts, then back to real-time on the critical areas.

For example, Denver to Albuquerque. There are a number of little hills, do I want to fly between them (the Sandia Mountains and a few little hills to the north) or skirt all the way around to the north and avoid them entirely?

Same with mountain passes - Pueblo to Alamosa. Do I want to fly over LaVeta Pass? Bring up a C172 with 180 HP or an Archer with 180 HP and see what makes sense. At what point do I need to start climbing to safely get over the pass, or thru the pass (2 different options).
 
murphey said:
Since Tim & Ron are probably two of the most excellent instructors (midlifeflyer is another) believe them.
Click to expand...

I'm flattered to be compared to Ron when it comes to instructing. I'm far from experienced as a flight instructor (grey hair notwithstanding) - I've only had my CFI for about fifteen months.

That said, I spent a lot of time teaching ground work and in various simulators before I got my CFI, so this is one topic I'm very comfortable discussing.

And Murphey, I use my simulator set up at home the same way you do. It's always nice to make a trip in the sim first when going somewhere unfamiliar.
 
Thanks for the input guys. It's going to be quite some time before I pull the trigger on training so for right now I am just having fun on simulators.
 
Enjoy them. Just expect that the real airplanes will be different, and don't get frustrated when you first start training.

I flew flight simulator from when it came on a 5 1/4" floppy right up to today. It's still a fun way to keep the love of flying alive when other things are keeping me from getting in the air.
 
I'll second the "they are ok for some parts of flying, but not all" sentiment.

Landing? Fuhgetaboutit
Navigation? Comms? Systems? All worthwhile
 
I have MSFS 04 and Saitek X36 that I'd been using since my days of Falcon 4. For some reason, in MSFS I get an uncommanded right aileron that I've been unable to solve. :cryin:
 
I found flight simulator very useful for instrumental training. After learning stuff with my CFII in FAA approved sim and in the plane I practice on X-plane at home. Holds and approaches can be practiced at home before next lesson. Typically before doing an approach at unfamiliar place I do it first at home on sim. Helps a lot. And I have to admit sim is much harder to fly then real plane.
 
Artiom said:
I found flight simulator very useful for instrumental training. After learning stuff with my CFII in FAA approved sim and in the plane I practice on X-plane at home. Holds and approaches can be practiced at home before next lesson. Typically before doing an approach at unfamiliar place I do it first at home on sim. Helps a lot. And I have to admit sim is much harder to fly then real plane.
Click to expand...

I've heard it said that once you've flown each type of approach, and are proficient that an approach is an approach is an approach. True or False?
 
Jaybird180 said:
I've heard it said that once you've flown each type of approach, and are proficient that an approach is an approach is an approach. True or False?
Click to expand...

From one perspective, the procedure, that's true. But an approach into Cumberland, MD is a lot different than one into Wichita KS, because of the terrain. And weather matters too.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I've heard it said that once you've flown each type of approach, and are proficient that an approach is an approach is an approach. True or False?
Click to expand...
In terms of the fundamental techniques, yes. However, in terms of procedure and execution, no, especially the "classic" VOR and NDB approaches. For example, compare the VOR 5 at KSBY with the VOR 27 at 33N.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/00977V5.PDF
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/05365V27.PDF
Different procedures, different problems, but it's still all about running your T's and tracking the needle.

OTOH, when you start looking at the TAA RNAV(GPS) approaches, they do pretty much all look the same.
 
Ron Levy said:
In terms of the fundamental techniques, yes. However, in terms of procedure and execution, no, especially the "classic" VOR and NDB approaches. For example, compare the VOR 5 at KSBY with the VOR 27 at 33N.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/00977V5.PDF
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1204/05365V27.PDF
Different procedures, different problems, but it's still all about running your T's and tracking the needle.

OTOH, when you start looking at the TAA RNAV(GPS) approaches, they do pretty much all look the same.
Click to expand...

Some of the approaches still look like gobbledygook to me, but I had been thinking of the T approaches.


TMetzinger said:
From one perspective, the procedure, that's true. But an approach into Cumberland, MD is a lot different than one into Wichita KS, because of the terrain. And weather matters too.
Click to expand...
In IMC, don't they all look the same, except for configuration and the pucker factor?
 
Jaybird180 said:
I've heard it said that once you've flown each type of approach, and are proficient that an approach is an approach is an approach. True or False?
Click to expand...
Have you ever had the same landings in a different places? They are all the same - 45 to downwind, downwind, base, final, flare, touchdown?
Same goes to approaches - IAF, IF, FAF, MAP, missed or landing. They are all the same but they are different.
 
jpower said:
I've definitely noticed the same thing. Why is that? Just because you don't get the feedback you get in a real airplane?
Click to expand...

I believe sims are not perfect. If you trim the real plane it will just fly. More than that if you put your typical trainer (C172 or PA-28) in unusual attitude and just let go of controls it will recover by itself :stirpot::stirpot::stirpot:
The sim will throw a curved ball at you if you just stop scanning and concentrate on VOR for couple seconds. IMO it is great. It teaches you to scan all the time and when you need to do something divide your attention and just keep scanning.
 
I've done currency approaches on the approved X-Plane with full controls and CFI, and if anything, I think they are harder to fly on the simulator.
 
Any sim is better than no sim, IMHO but the key is managing expectations and knowing what its capabilities and limitations are.

For instance, any at-home setup of MSFS can be used to learn what the flight instruments are supposed to look like during various phases of flight. Depending on the fidelity of the graphics in the sim, it can also be useful to compare these instrument indications with outside visual references.

Most at-home PC based sims are also good teaching/learning tools for the basics of VOR navigation. Even if you can't log the time (which you can't on most consumer PC based sims) it's still time well spent... makes your in-flight experience more meaningful.

Most sims are NOT useful, however, for learning how to land a real airplane because you do not get any control feedback. They are GREAT for instrument training though.

[shameless on-topic plug alert] My husband and I are both CFIs and last year we purchased an Elite PI-135 BATD, which is essentially a souped-up version of your at-home MSFS desktop setup. Ours has a complete radio stack with buttons and knobs (more realistic than pushing F4 or whatever to execute a command). It has a fully featured Garmin 430W simulator and input device, so it's great for initial avionics training.

We have our sim installed in a custom-designed desktop that we can setup inside our Honda Odyssey minivan, so we can bring it to the customer. This afternoon, for example, I have a lesson scheduled with a primary student, but the weather's awful here in DC. Since we can't fly, we'll use the sim to log an hour toward his required 3 hours of simulated instrument time. The PI-135 BATD can be used to log up to 2.5 hours toward a Private or 10 hours toward an Instrument rating.
 
danamerfly said:
Any sim is better than no sim, IMHO but the key is managing expectations and knowing what its capabilities and limitations are.

For instance, any at-home setup of MSFS can be used to learn what the flight instruments are supposed to look like during various phases of flight. Depending on the fidelity of the graphics in the sim, it can also be useful to compare these instrument indications with outside visual references.

Most at-home PC based sims are also good teaching/learning tools for the basics of VOR navigation. Even if you can't log the time (which you can't on most consumer PC based sims) it's still time well spent... makes your in-flight experience more meaningful.

Most sims are NOT useful, however, for learning how to land a real airplane because you do not get any control feedback. They are GREAT for instrument training though.

[shameless on-topic plug alert] My husband and I are both CFIs and last year we purchased an Elite PI-135 BATD, which is essentially a souped-up version of your at-home MSFS desktop setup. Ours has a complete radio stack with buttons and knobs (more realistic than pushing F4 or whatever to execute a command). It has a fully featured Garmin 430W simulator and input device, so it's great for initial avionics training.

We have our sim installed in a custom-designed desktop that we can setup inside our Honda Odyssey minivan, so we can bring it to the customer. This afternoon, for example, I have a lesson scheduled with a primary student, but the weather's awful here in DC. Since we can't fly, we'll use the sim to log an hour toward his required 3 hours of simulated instrument time. The PI-135 BATD can be used to log up to 2.5 hours toward a Private or 10 hours toward an Instrument rating.
Click to expand...

I thought this was familiar! I saw you post on Y! Groups when you guys set this up. Good on ya!
 
Sims are great for learning procedures, very cost effective; the flying part, not so much so because it doesn't introduce the rest of the senses.
 
I used (played, really) Microsoft Flight Sim ever since I was like 7 or 8. I started with MSFS 5.1 and played just about every single one until FSX. FS2004 was my favorite.

Anyway, like I said, I started using them when I was 7 or 8. However, I had no real idea of how any of the systems worked. I just arbitrarily flew. As the years went on, I figured out how each of the systems worked. To clarify, when I say "systems," I mean just a broad generalization of avionics, engine management, etc. It got to the point where I was able to utilize particularly complex panels/add-ons that required extensive checklists, and I combined all this with filing IFR plans and following a specific route using a combination of radio and GPS navigation. My approaches could use some work, heh.

I'm 25 now. I stopped using flight sim when I got my first taste of flight in October 2011. I must say, starting at such an early age combined with my passion (or obsession) for aviation has really helped out in my training. Big time. My instructor was impressed with my ability to just hop in the plane and know exactly where the switches were and what they do. Some concepts still required actual flight: crosswinds, stalls, certain engine starting procedures, etc. This is because there's a certain feel to them that can't really be replicated in a simulator (unless it's full motion).

So, long story short, yes, flight simulators can definitely help you.
 
Last edited:
danamerfly said:
We have our sim installed in a custom-designed desktop that we can setup inside our Honda Odyssey minivan, so we can bring it to the customer. This afternoon, for example, I have a lesson scheduled with a primary student, but the weather's awful here in DC. Since we can't fly, we'll use the sim to log an hour toward his required 3 hours of simulated instrument time. The PI-135 BATD can be used to log up to 2.5 hours toward a Private or 10 hours toward an Instrument rating.
Click to expand...

That. Is. Awesome.
 
danamerfly said:
Any sim is better than no sim, IMHO but the key is managing expectations and knowing what its capabilities and limitations are.

For instance, any at-home setup of MSFS can be used to learn what the flight instruments are supposed to look like during various phases of flight. Depending on the fidelity of the graphics in the sim, it can also be useful to compare these instrument indications with outside visual references.

Most at-home PC based sims are also good teaching/learning tools for the basics of VOR navigation. Even if you can't log the time (which you can't on most consumer PC based sims) it's still time well spent... makes your in-flight experience more meaningful.

Most sims are NOT useful, however, for learning how to land a real airplane because you do not get any control feedback. They are GREAT for instrument training though.

[shameless on-topic plug alert] My husband and I are both CFIs and last year we purchased an Elite PI-135 BATD, which is essentially a souped-up version of your at-home MSFS desktop setup. Ours has a complete radio stack with buttons and knobs (more realistic than pushing F4 or whatever to execute a command). It has a fully featured Garmin 430W simulator and input device, so it's great for initial avionics training.

We have our sim installed in a custom-designed desktop that we can setup inside our Honda Odyssey minivan, so we can bring it to the customer. This afternoon, for example, I have a lesson scheduled with a primary student, but the weather's awful here in DC. Since we can't fly, we'll use the sim to log an hour toward his required 3 hours of simulated instrument time. The PI-135 BATD can be used to log up to 2.5 hours toward a Private or 10 hours toward an Instrument rating.
Click to expand...

Now this definitely sounds awesome!!!!
 
I bought a yoke and pedal setup and Xplane before I started training. I played with it a little but found I was too busy to use it as much as I would have hoped. I am just now beginning to get into the XC pahse of my lessons and I can see myself using it a lot now. My goal is to fly every SOLO XC on XPlane before I do it for real. This way maybe some things will seem familiar. It will allow me to prepare for any airspace issues in route as well. Also I can see that the simulator will be a great tool for getting familair with VOR nav...

My instructor is old school so he has not embraced technology. He does not knock it, but teaches as he always has for decades.. I recently attached my GoPro camera to the strut of the 172 on one of our lessons and managed to get Solo#2 & 3 on film as well as both days pattern work. Also I have Cloud Ahoy running and he wants me to show him how it all is used. He wants to critique my videos and I told him with Cloud ahoy he can critique my entire flight as it shows how well I maintain altitude and navigation in conjunction to the video. Cloud ahoy, goPro and the addition of a flight sim seem like tools every student should have...

Marc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top