Is a flight simulator hardware bundle worth it for a new student?

[coma24]

I also want to come right out and say that the traditional BATD's (they're not called that, but if the schools still calls it that, they probably fit into the category I'm about to describe) are complete and utter disasters. The fidelity of the flight model, visuals, the frame rate and flight controls are such a trainwreck, I would agree THOSE are a non-starter for VFR. However, modern day PC's running modern day simulation tools can produce an immersive, believable experience.

Btw, I agree there are potential pitfalls in training in the sim ahead of what you've been taught by an instructor. Even if you relegate the sim to simply using it to practice what you've just learned in the airplane for the first time (as I did with slow flight), I think it's valuable.

 

[Jim Logajan]

My own search of the net for formal studies on home simulators doesn't yield anything about simmers who attempted to self-train prior to training from a CFI, but I found one partially relevant study because it deals with sim training prior to actual flight training:

Abstract
Two groups of ab initio student pilots were given training on a flight simulation package running on a desk-top computer prior to performing some basic flight maneuvers in the air. One group interacted with the computer using a representative set of flight controls. The other group used only the computer's cursor and function keys. Both groups exhibited superior performance compared to a control group who had no computer-based training. Students with prior training who used representative flight controls also experienced lower in-flight workload. The results suggest that PC-based flight simulators do not aid in the psychomotor skills required to fly a light aircraft. Their benefits lie elsewhere. However, even very low levels of simulator fidelity can be beneficial in the initial stages of pilot training.
​

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327108ijap0803_6#.UZu8JMoSafU

Nothing surprising here - the abstract doesn't mention any negative aspects (such as instrument fixation.) Not sure why they even tried keyboard input! This next one isn't directly relevant to new students, but does address a realm where I would expect flight control fidelity to be important to success:

ABSTRACT
Three groups of novice pilots received training to fly aerobatic maneuvers in a light aircraft. Trainees in the control group received in-flight instruction and were given the usual briefings before each flight. Trainees in the two experimental groups received extra training: each in-flight lesson was preceded by PC-based simulated flight. A total of 2053 maneuvers were analyzed on the basis of both flight-data recordings and instructor ratings. We hypothesized that complex manual flying skills, learned on the ground, transfer to the aircraft. The results provide no objective support for this hypothesis. There were no significant differences in flying skills between the three groups as measured by the flight-data recordings. However, both experimental (PC-) groups managed to fly significantly more maneuvers in the same amount of flight time in the aircraft. Differences between flight-data recordings and instructor ratings are analyzed in detail. In the discussion, we compare the findings with published transfer-experiments with PC-based simulation.
​

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/pubfulltext/rto/mp/rto-mp-msg-035/mp-msg-035-14.pdf

I am surprised that anyone even tried to use PC based simulators in teaching aerobatics. I don't think even the most ardent fan of simulation would expect any useful results (though it looks like it helped reduce ground instruction time.)

EDIT:
Found this study, again of some relevance (I don't think ELITE was even intended for this sort of thing):

Abstract
PC-based flight-simulation effectiveness was analyzed through a transfer-of-learning study. Sixty college students with no previous flight experience performed a designated-aircraft maneuver. Thirty of the subjects were trained in a computer-based training device (CBTD) before flying; the remaining 30 were taken directly to the aircraft. Chi-square and t test analyses on the data revealed a statistical advantage at the .01 level of confidence for the CBTD-trained experimental group, which performed significantly better than the control group. The CBTD chosen for this study was AzureSoft's Electronic Instrument Flight Rules Environment (ELITE™), run on a Zenith personal computer. Cessna 150 and 152 aircraft were used for the flight portion of the study. The incorporation of CBTDs in flight training is recommended because they have the potential for reducing the amount of hours spent in the airplane.
​

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327108ijap0403_5#.UZvSacoSafU

 

[Headspace]

The studies Jim has dug up are all newer than the one I found and they all say some variant of the same thing; that the PC-based simulators don't assist with psychomotor skills but they can transfer some instrument skills.

Which is probably why you get some allowance for ATD/sim time in the initial instrument rating but there isn't any mention of it in private pilot or commercial maneuvers (pretty sure on the last one, anyhow).

I also want to come right out and say that the traditional BATD's (they're not called that, but if the schools still calls it that, they probably fit into the category I'm about to describe) are complete and utter disasters. The fidelity of the flight model, visuals, the frame rate and flight controls are such a trainwreck, I would agree THOSE are a non-starter for VFR. However, modern day PC's running modern day simulation tools can produce an immersive, believable experience.

The ATDs I've seen in my travels are all being used to train instrument students or help instrument pilots with currency.

Btw, I agree there are potential pitfalls in training in the sim ahead of what you've been taught by an instructor. Even if you relegate the sim to simply using it to practice what you've just learned in the airplane for the first time (as I did with slow flight), I think it's valuable.

I think it's spinning wheels outside of instrument training, but I don't think it does any particular damage other than wasting your time.

Do you work for Pilotedge, BTW?

 

[1600vw]

When flying a sim I myself find it fun to try and go somewhere by following the roads. I will fly from my home airport and see how far I can go without getting lost or looking at my GPS. Its a lot of fun and a challenge.

I have flown as far as I could, found an airport, landed. Then the next day take off from their.
I also like to use real weather and time.

This is me but I do not like flying a sim. airplane that has a glass panel. I want the old steam gauges. I am working on the VOR now but this is way above any flying I will ever do in the real world, but still a lot of fun to learn and master, at least on the sim.

Sometimes I jump in a 747 and let ATC take me from point A to B, but that gets old fast....

 

[1600vw]

Sometimes I have my sectional on my lap and sometimes I use a road map. To me looking at the gauges when using a sim is boring. I like to fly VFR and use the radio.

 

[coma24]

Headspace, yes, I'm the Founder of PilotEdge. I try to avoid direct promotion of it, though (unless it's specifically) relevant, and generally espouse the benefits of online ATC which I feel very passionate about.

One area I failed to mention for primary training is XC flying. Pilotage and ded reckoning can be flown beautifully with modern sims. I've flown coast to coast, several times in the sim using nothing but pilotage and ded reckoning the whole way (no VOR, no GPS, no moving map). I used to use the sim to pre-fly specific cross countries, now I just practice pilotage for random VFR flights in the sim.

I'm struggling to see how practicing XC procedures, radio work, etc, could be categorized as a waste of time. I don't mean to be stubborn about it...but so many people who are doing it find it to be beneficial, it's hard to imagine they're all wrong.

 

[MAKG1]

Because it is DIFFERENT. I've yet to see a sim that has airports that aren't FAR too easy to spot, and all the usual VFR landmarks. Like the sunken ship West of KHWD. The mall (Pruneyard) west of KSJC. The cement plant used for almost every approach into KSQL.

In real life, spotting the destination is a challenge, and the choice of checkpoints is very different.

 

[Headspace]

Headspace, yes, I'm the Founder of PilotEdge. I try to avoid direct promotion of it, though (unless it's specifically) relevant, and generally espouse the benefits of online ATC which I feel very passionate about.

O/T but I develop a radio simulation product for Teamspeak that hooks into DCS. Over the next few months we'll be putting out an SDK for it that's designed to enable it to "talk" with any desktop sim. I know there was someone associated with PEdge on reddit who I spoke to about it awhile back. Not sure if that was you. You probably have channel-switching in place for your product. We take that a step further and simulate simple path loss along with other more advanced types of attenuation. I'd like to see it used for more than just gaming.

I'm struggling to see how practicing XC procedures, radio work, etc, could be categorized as a waste of time. I don't mean to be stubborn about it...but so many people who are doing it find it to be beneficial, it's hard to imagine they're all wrong.

First, it's worth pointing out that the radio thing doesn't apply to the vast majority of PC based flight simulation and games that people use. It ought to (because it's really useful), but it doesn't, at least not yet.

I'd argue that XC procedures and radio work aren't the primary things you learn in the initial stages of getting your private. You learn those things, but you learn them far more intensely in the IFR environment. You can do your private without knowing anything about how the national airspace system works from the perspective of a Center, for instance. I agree that it may be valuable in terms of learning how to do a flight plan, but object uniformity in most desktop products tends to make pilotage and dead reckoning way easier than it is in real life.

 

[Archammer]

Normally, I would just leave it be, but that is just not possible here.

Wrong on all counts.

Well please, allow me to retort!

They might save you a LITTLE money. More likely, it's a wash. It can waste a ton of money if you get a lot of bad habits from it.

Is thousands of dollars a wash? I want your bank account please. So do the 2 other students that started just after me. I did develop one bad habit, regarding a few radio calls, which is normal for anyone in a sim or in the real thing. Which of course was quickly remedied in flight training.

Any simming you do without an instructor for ANYTHING is playing, and should be treated as such.

It's SIMULATION, not gaming. There is a large distinction there that you are missing.

For primary training, some benefit can be obtained for a few things, but it is quite limited compared to what you need to learn to be a safe VFR pilot.

A large benefit can be obtained, as a VFR pilot, from almost EVERYTHING except for the "feel" that you're so hung up on, and guess what? That "feeling" is getting extremely real in a simulator right now. I'm glad that you at least specified VFR pilot to soapbox on, because you know that IFR training in a sim saves a HUGE amount of money, and time.

You will spend most of your training time on things that can't be simulated adequately. Even reading the instruments.

Well in the really-real world, you spend most of your time executing what you trained in the sim on, period. I read the instruments just fine. There is this great new invention called a GLASS cockpit. You know, the gauges that current planes have...

A sim won't bounce the airspeed indicator in turbulence or have backlash in the OBS like a real airplane does, for instance. Feel is totally wrong, and disorientation is quite different.

I'm not even going to indulge this one, because I might hurt your feelings.

Now, simming can be fun, and I won't discourage anyone from trying it out for that reason. But to say it saves money for primary training is just wrong. It doesn't. It does help for learning IFR procedures, and instructors often use them for that. But that's very far afield from primary training.

My bank account and zero time to 41 hour PPL will not repeat what I already said. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Just to pour salt in your wound, it would have been 36 hours, but our DPE had to leave right after my oral, and was out of country and unavailable for a few weeks after. But at least that gave me plenty of time to jack around with IACRA... What a mess that was...

Simming can be an addiction; there are quite a number of simmers that claim it's just like training to try to justify it. There are very few pilots that make that claim, though the occasional one comes out of the woodwork.

Ya, that's how change occurs. You hear it from a few at first, and before you know it, BOOM, you're the minority. Shhh, it'll be ok.

 

[MAKG1]

So, a sample size of one in a completely uncontrolled experiment and you're drawing conclusions from that?

How do you know you wouldn't have done 41 hours without the sim? That happens occasionally.

Let's just say that, as a simulation professional, my experience was very different from yours. You can bet I analyzed reasons why in detail. They have their use for IFR procedure training, but absolutely not for basic control by reference to instruments, due to massively different disorientation. Real 6DOF simulators have some additional uses, but are still far from perfect -- and are quite a lot more expensive than a complete private pilot training regimen. But learning to fly from zero time? No. Too much stuff left out. Yes, Redbird is trying it -- with high end simulators. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[Headspace]

I think the debate in this thread centers primarily on what skills are transferable. There are controlled studies that have been done that supports the assertion that the IFR training environment is the best area to focus on simulation for GA. This would also support the usefulness of radio tools as well. The disagreement seems to center on whether or not there is any transfer of training effectiveness with regard to psychomotor skills.

The study I mentioned earlier was "Transfer of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices" (DOT FAA AM-97/11), a reprint of which appears to have been linked above by someone else. You can retrieve it from the FAA's website here. It's a cost/benefit analysis.

I did part of my IFR training in an ATC-610, which technology-wise, compared to a modern PC, is a joke. But, I learned a lot from it, which made the device valuable. Having a competent CFII running the scenario made a huge difference, I'm sure. With a high fidelity PC ATD plus something like PilotEdge I'm sure it would have been even more effective provided the supervising CFII knew what they were doing.

 

[MAKG1]

I won't be disagreeing with that.

Simulators have their place in instrument training. It's the statement that they help everything under the sun that I take issue with. And that was the original question.

The most "advanced" tool is also not necessarily the best. A simulator with tens of thousands of variables is not better than one with a few dozen, unless all those extra variables actually serve some important purpose. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. For instance, which would teach you hold entries better? A complex ATD where you have to fly the plane while learning, or one of several hold entry apps, or even the Garmin 400 series sim?

I presume by "radio tools" you mean VOR navigation. They have their limits there, too, and there are special purpose VOR simulators that might be more helpful, at least for learning rather than practicing. For just radio comms, a real, local human (like a pilot buddy or an instructor) can be significantly more helpful, especially with local procedures. But nothing really prepares you for dealing with your first ATC screw up. Like getting told to turn base while on the ground (BTDT).

 

[Headspace]

I presume by "radio tools" you mean VOR navigation. They have their limits there, too, and there are special purpose VOR simulators that might be more helpful, at least for learning rather than practicing. For just radio comms, a real, local human (like a pilot buddy or an instructor) can be significantly more helpful, especially with local procedures. But nothing really prepares you for dealing with your first ATC screw up. Like getting told to turn base while on the ground (BTDT).

By "radio tools" I mean anything that would assist with learning the ins and outs of talking on the radio in the national airspace system (or other). Radionavigation is IFR nav. The ATC-610 did a pretty good ADF and VOR impression despite the apparent lack of a digital computer (I'm assuming there was some sort of analog, rheostat based device in there). Any greater level of fidelity would have been wasted. No argument from me about having an instructor issue you radio commands; that's how I learned and it worked.

One of the challenges with PC based simulation software (and I say simulation in the technical sense) is that the gaming market and the "real need" market have some overlap. People who do this for entertainment, and I won't exclude myself, generally look for immersive aspects that may not garner transferability. There was a point made in one of the papers linked earlier (Dennis & Harris) about fidelity not necessarily making a difference with some skills. But fidelity is usually necessary to some extent when you're dealing with the suspension of disbelief demanded from simulation as an entertainment medium. The cost/benefit plots when comparing simulation-as-entertainment "simulation games/serious games" to simulation as training seem to be somewhat orthogonal to one another.

 

[Archammer]

The question was about a home simulator, not a Redbird with an instructor.

I read that Redbird report as well, and it had a distinct flavor of marketing.

Yes, and the answer is I used a HOME simulator first, AND a Redbird simulator once I started training. Call the report what you want, the simple point is that it's fact. My story is also not marketing, it is actual fact, period.

I had lots of home sim time before flight training. I will concede that it is possible I could have done it without one. However, the other two students after me and the multitudes of students to follow are dropping the national average of what, about 70 hours probably, to much closer to that 40 marker. It is truly a marvel of technology what is happening, and I really hope it's able to make us all safer and better at this love of aviation. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of reading news reports all the time about lawn darts that didn't have to be.

I hope that helps with this great topic