I found a Redbird Simulator an hour away to use to knock out 10 hrs of my IFR training. The woman I talked to couldn't answer all my questions and an instructor wasn't available at the time. My question is, does an instructor have to be with you the whole time while using the SIM to be able to log and be signed off for those hours?
Redbird Simulator for IFR hours
- Thread starter n7421w
- Start date
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,692
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom
For training, yes.
Yes, to amplify what Tom says, 61.65 (i) requires it to be instruction, and that means with the instructor present instructing
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
The way to get the most from a simulator is to have an instructor with you and do it in the phase of training after you have mastered the skill of holding heading and altitude and maneuvering under the hood. The advantage is that you can go through an approach and at any time the instructor can pause or start over after showing you something you need to know as opposed to the same situation in an aircraft costing you a really long amount of time to go around and do it again.
The high cost of a simulator with the right instructor at the correct stage of your learning can turn out to be money WELL spent. Doing it as I described is the correct approach to a simulator IMHO. Doing it just to log 10 hours and get them in the book would not be as valuable IMHO.
The high cost of a simulator with the right instructor at the correct stage of your learning can turn out to be money WELL spent. Doing it as I described is the correct approach to a simulator IMHO. Doing it just to log 10 hours and get them in the book would not be as valuable IMHO.
texasclouds
En-Route
Yes, the FARs clearly state an instructor must be there providing instruction. Now after you earn your ticket, you can stay IFR current using the simulator solo.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
On the Redbird you will receive sim hours for the time on the Hobbs. Each time the sim is paused the Hobbs stops. For a 1.5 hour sim lesson you will typically be charged 1.5 for the sim, 1.5 for the instructor. Your logbook will show less sim time because the CFI will be pausing the sim to provide coaching or resetting scenarios. The remainder is ground instruction.
GMascelli
En-Route
I’m going to give the Red Bird full motion sim a go next week. My plane is in annual and my currency expires the end of May.
The Flight School (Ocean Aviation) at our airport (KOXB) just set up the Red Bird. It should be fun flying the required IFR approaches, hold, and tracking to reset my currency.
I’m going to try and video the experience.
The Flight School (Ocean Aviation) at our airport (KOXB) just set up the Red Bird. It should be fun flying the required IFR approaches, hold, and tracking to reset my currency.
I’m going to try and video the experience.
Last edited:
Larry in TN
En-Route
The advantage of the simulator is that you can train on specific skills and procedures without the distractions and wasted time of a a real flight. The key to effective simulator training is to have an instructor who understands this and understands how to use the simulator to provide a level of training that is not possible in an airplane. If the instructor treats a lesson in the sim the same as a lesson in an airplane you aren't taking advantage of what the simulator has to offer.
For example, if the lesson is holding patterns, the sim lets you do many more holding pattern entries, in a two-hour training block, then you could ever do in an airplane and each entry is more effective training because anytime that you have a question or become confused, the sim had be frozen to allow the instructor to teach and for you to work out the problem and understand the situation. No time is wasted on preflight, engine start, taxi, runup, takeoff, climb, transit to the practice area, repeatedly maneuvering to position for your next hold entry, and returning to the airport at the end. You can quickly transitions from holds over a VOR to holds at a DME fix to holds on an approach to holds at an intersection, etc.
If your CFI knows how to use the sim, it is a great tool for your instrument training.
For example, if the lesson is holding patterns, the sim lets you do many more holding pattern entries, in a two-hour training block, then you could ever do in an airplane and each entry is more effective training because anytime that you have a question or become confused, the sim had be frozen to allow the instructor to teach and for you to work out the problem and understand the situation. No time is wasted on preflight, engine start, taxi, runup, takeoff, climb, transit to the practice area, repeatedly maneuvering to position for your next hold entry, and returning to the airport at the end. You can quickly transitions from holds over a VOR to holds at a DME fix to holds on an approach to holds at an intersection, etc.
If your CFI knows how to use the sim, it is a great tool for your instrument training.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,878
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Spoke with this gentleman at SnF & got to play a bit on the simulator (has simulator will travel):
https://simulator2go.com/
Don't know if this helps ...
https://simulator2go.com/
Don't know if this helps ...
GMascelli
En-Route
I couldn’t find a safety pilot so I scheduled time in the red bird full motion sim here at KOXB- Ocean City’s Ocean Aviation.
I shot six approaches, a hold, and tracking to reset currency. 1.6 hours total and I’m good to go. Had a fun time and flew a G1000 set up for the first time. I figured it would add some stress to the sim having never flown that avionics package before.
I shot six approaches, a hold, and tracking to reset currency. 1.6 hours total and I’m good to go. Had a fun time and flew a G1000 set up for the first time. I figured it would add some stress to the sim having never flown that avionics package before.
You still haven't flown it. The Redbird simulation of such sucks to the point of being counterproductive.
The full motion feature is about as useful as the thing out in front of the dollar store you stuff dimes into.
The full motion feature is about as useful as the thing out in front of the dollar store you stuff dimes into.
GMascelli
En-Route
Tell it to the FAA. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, for some folks it helps. Hope someone doesn’t p*** in your wheaties again tomorrow.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Likewise for the full-motion sims on stilts. Unless you factor in that the vertigo they generate makes you focus on your scan.
Last edited:
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
The FAA LOA certifying the Redbird is not dependent upon the motion, so you've just helped prove the idea it's a gimmick.
coma24
Line Up and Wait
It's certified as an AATD, so the simulation of the avionics doesn't have to be spot on. There was a time when the G1000 in RB's didn't even depict Class D airspace. That made it really interesting when schools were trying to fly with an online ATC network where the airspace actually mattered. Thankfully, that was fixed, although there are still myriad differences between the real avionics and the sim. The same is true of the stock xplane G1000 and Garmin 530, though, to be fair.
Studies from DECADES ago show that the training value of motion is minimal. Done well, it is somewhat immersive. Done poorly, it's pretty horrific. I've worked with a lot of flight schools and their sims....most of them run with the motion off. That says a lot.
Studies from DECADES ago show that the training value of motion is minimal. Done well, it is somewhat immersive. Done poorly, it's pretty horrific. I've worked with a lot of flight schools and their sims....most of them run with the motion off. That says a lot.
=
Have you flown a real G1000? Have you flown the Redbird? I've done both. I don't find its G1000 implementation to be useful if you actually need to learn the G1000. That was my point, and I could do so without throwing out inane ad hominem attacks at people I disagree with.
GMascelli
En-Route
Then state that point or specific question instead of “it sucks”, “counterproductive” and “as useful as the thing out in front of the dollar store you stuff dimes into.” I’m not a mind reader, and when someone makes that type of comment I give it back in return. I’ve been here long enough to see how people pile on or take cheap shots with out getting to a specific point.
We have a Redbird TD2 and I warn pilots about the lack of fidelity of the navs whether it's the G1000 or the GNS. So the "full motion" version isn't any better, eh?
@GMascelli, if you want a specific example, here's the one I use when I explain the limitations. Since you are there, I'll use the OKB RNAV 2.
You are arriving from the south. Based on your direction of flight, you expect to be given direct to CIRAN and cleared straight in. So you load the approach with CIRAN as the transition. It's an IFR day and there is always the possibility of being instructed to hold because there's someone just ahead of you for either the approach or a departure, so you load it with the hold. Ultimately you are given direct to CIRAN and cleared straight in.
What do you do (a) with the real avionics; (b) with the Redbird?
In general, I think motion in a simulator is of minimal value, for the following reasons.
The most valuable skill is to trust your instruments, scan them well, and pick out the ones that may be failing. Motion has little to do with those basic skills.
Failing the instrument devices by the instructor is a vital training item, and again, motion is not relevant.
Gaining skill in the proper use of the navigation and auto pilot devices featured by the simulator should be supported by accurate features and function. Motion, again, is not important.
One of my instructors had me sit in a swivel chair to use the table top simulator, and rocked the chair about at random. He claimed that the real value of motion in simulators should be to make the pilot and plane move relative to one another, making steady operation of the flight controls hard, and changing settings on nav and gyro's more difficult to do accurately.
He also claimed that such disturbance interfered with scan, and the pilot needed to learn to ignore such disturbances, and maintain a continuous scan at all times, and sharper in turbulence, as that is when the potential for loss of control is most severe.
I have never had training in a modern full motion simulator, so my input is not as valuable as the military and airline pilots, but I have never had any difficulty dealing with IFR flight or night flight in turbulence. Keeping a good scan going, and comparing what the various instruments tell me has gone nicely.
The most valuable skill is to trust your instruments, scan them well, and pick out the ones that may be failing. Motion has little to do with those basic skills.
Failing the instrument devices by the instructor is a vital training item, and again, motion is not relevant.
Gaining skill in the proper use of the navigation and auto pilot devices featured by the simulator should be supported by accurate features and function. Motion, again, is not important.
One of my instructors had me sit in a swivel chair to use the table top simulator, and rocked the chair about at random. He claimed that the real value of motion in simulators should be to make the pilot and plane move relative to one another, making steady operation of the flight controls hard, and changing settings on nav and gyro's more difficult to do accurately.
He also claimed that such disturbance interfered with scan, and the pilot needed to learn to ignore such disturbances, and maintain a continuous scan at all times, and sharper in turbulence, as that is when the potential for loss of control is most severe.
I have never had training in a modern full motion simulator, so my input is not as valuable as the military and airline pilots, but I have never had any difficulty dealing with IFR flight or night flight in turbulence. Keeping a good scan going, and comparing what the various instruments tell me has gone nicely.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
I got my IR behind a G1000 and a Redbird FMX. I found the FMX to be very helpful in both learning attitude flying and G1000 buttonology. I thought it was good enough that I bought a TD2 to help maintain currency and proficiency. Obviously some hate the Redbirds but I found them very useful so my advice is give a shot and see what you think.
GMascelli
En-Route
In my plane (my real avionics) on the Garmin 480 within a mile of the PT/Hold and no hold issued I would hit the suspend and when it sequences fly the next leg.
On the red bird with the G1000, with no
experience, I would ‘assume’ hitting the suspend would follow the same process as above. Typically my heading bug is set to the next heading so if in a jam follow the bug then go into PROC and select fly the next leg.
The scenario is you are given straight in. You don't need to do the hold. In the real avionics, I'd delete the hold and let it sequence to the next leg of the approach. You can't in the Redbird.
Trogdor
Pre-takeoff checklist
The Redbird i use contains the RXP GNS software as part of its sim. That software uses the old Garmin Windows trainer client to simulate the GNS series of avionics. If that can remove the hold, you can remove the hold under your Redbird.
Now, XP11’s stock 430 won’t let you remove the hold as well. But you can activate the leg post the hold which would be “good enough”. I agree, in real life, it’s easier to just remove the hold and let the unit sequence (which I’ve done numerous times).
I know nothing about RXP, but I do know what the Garmin Windows trainer does and the Redbird doesn't.
Trogdor
Pre-takeoff checklist
The Redbird I use clearly boots up the RealityXP software when it loads the 530.
What can I say? I can only report on the behavior I see in the TD2 (multiple times since I include this as a demonstration of its limitations when I teach in it), not what is located under the hood.
Wait: isn't RealityXP an optional Redbird add-on? You have it. We don't?
Trogdor
Pre-takeoff checklist
That may well be it. In any event, the Redbird I use has been recently upgraded to XP 11.55 and the stock 430/530 is awful (I use it all the time at home and just deal…).
Yep. Basically a crippled GNS. it's still good for many tasks. I actually tell pilots it teaches how to handle the unexpected
.
Everything that Garmin made with "GNS" in it isn't the same. The 480 was built by Apollo/UPSAT as the CNX80. The clowns in Olathe haven't a clue about it and couldn't design an IFR navigator to save their life.
Definitely not pulling any punches! You wonder what we could have had if UPSAT stuck around. Although I always wondered why they were in it to begin with.
Trogdor
Pre-takeoff checklist
Bendix King: “Hold my beer…” (develops KLN 94)
If you're asking why UPS bought Apollo, that might be a good question. But Apollo/UPSAT was making some real nice units up to and including the CNX80/MX20.
That was the question. I've heard nothing but good things about the cnx 80 and a shame Garmin killed it when there boxes were inferior.
I suspect UPS bought them for the same reason Garmin did. They wanted the technology. UPS was big into ADSB development and the MX20 was a good platform for that development. Garmin wanted WAAS.
I used to stand in the Garmin booth at OSH in front of the 480 and demo it to instrument rated pilots. If you were an instrument pilot and you hadn't been ruined by the 430/530 horrendous design, it is quite intuitive.
Doug Reid
Cleared for Takeoff
Re: Redbird...they are good for learning procedures as a student. IMO, learning to fly by the numbers and manage a stabilized approach in a real airplane is more challenging than flying a Redbird. Being current vs being proficient.
coma24
Line Up and Wait
That's very odd, I wasn't aware any RB BATDs/AATDs were using X-Plane. Is this an xplane sim using RB's Alloy product line of flight controls, or is this a BATD/AATD? If so...which model?
Trogdor
Pre-takeoff checklist
N51’s DCX MAX is in fact running XP 11.55. M.T. just upgraded it. Pretty sure the flight controls are mostly Precision. I thought you’ve used that one too in fact?
EDIT: Wasn’t Redbird but is in fact Precision Flight
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,527
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
There are several running X-Plane. Gleim’s and FlyThisSim’s offering comes to mind. There is a also a separate “certified” license from X-Plane you cam buy if you want to try to gey the FAA sign off on your homebrew sim setup, too.
https://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
The DCX Max isn't made by Redbird, but a competitor to Redbird.