Using Flight Simulation for Procedures & Skills Orientation

[Positive Rate]

I'll have to agree with the last comment, there is a physical side you need to learn. It doesn't take 8 hours a day and that might actually be detrimental. Even with a busy schedule finding the time to fly 4-5 hours a week will do you wonders.

The eight (8) hours per day is for the entire training program - not just flying an airplane. This was also stipulated in the other OP. The training program is comprehensive to General Aviation and Business Aviation and includes education and research on the state of the industry, government regulations, aviation technology, trends, driving market forces, OEMs, attending conventions, seminars and aviation related meetings across the United States by way of long-range cross country flights - after completion of the Instrument Rating and through the turbine time building phases - before taking delivery of a new VLJ.

This was not about obtaining a private pilots license at the local flight club.

I doubt you'll believe any of us, sooooo fly the simulator until your fingers bleed if you want then go take a 1 hour discovery flight and see if you can actually fly the plane. If you're flying like a pro, then you've proven your point, if not then you might see the advantage of just flying around VFR in a simple airplane even for a few hours a week.

I believe what's logical, rational, coherent and what directly addresses the point of the thread. I also believe that like many, you have missed the entire point of the thread. I believe that precious few in this thread have actually read the OP and I believe that they have proven they read the OP by their on-topic replies - which were helpful and informative.

I believe that this pic demonstrates what this thread was supposed to be all about and I believe it proves that you have not read the OP very carefully:

This is one example plucked from a myriad of examples. This could have been an example plucked from the Cessna T210 aircraft, or any of the aircraft chosen to be part of the training program. This is but one example of many. Its complexity is not relevant to the point being made. The point being made with this pic, draws out some of the reasons why I have decided to use a Flight Simulator that can simulate the aircraft that will be used in my flight training program.

The highlighted areas were created by me. This document should be very familiar to B200 drivers. The B200 is one of the time building aircraft listed in my fleet of training aircraft - the final step before moving to the VLJ.

I can read the plain English inside this document. What I do not yet understand is the Why, What, When, How and Where of this document. All of the highlighted text contains some kind of Procedure and that is the point of this pic as well as this entire thread.

There is a B200 driver out there on this forum who knows what they are looking at in this pic because they've trained on it before, or they use these Procedures with some kind of regularity. I (obviously) have not. Thus, the need for Orientation to Procedures that are relative to the aircraft that will be flown during this particular phase of my training and time building.

This pic does not require me to understand the kinesthetics of flying the B200. It does not attempt to make me an instant B200 driver by flying a desktop simulator until my "fingers bleed." But, it does give me some insight into what to expect down the road when the real flying of the B200 commences and it does give me some Orientation to Procedures relevant for this particular aircraft, which can be simulated before the actual flying begins.

There are several questions that can be asked about B200 Area Departure Climb Profiles, just like there are several questions that can be asked about what to expect with the flight instruments when the Vacuum System fails on a Cessna T210. They are just questions that have answers - that's all. They are not attempts to become a licensed pilot online.

Why this is so hard to understand by some, I will never know.

 

[Positive Rate]

Here's mistake #1 in that post. You ARE talking about obtaining a physical experience.

Explain where the physical experience manifests itself when you make a Radio Call in response to Tower instructing you to contact Departure and you need to make a frequency change on the radio in order to comply, while at the same time making sure manage correct airspeed, altitude and heading.

Where is the physical component in those Procedures? And, why is reading about that segment of Procedures any better than both reading about it and actually performing it inside a simulator? How much of this Procedural segment of the flight requires no memory at all? How much of this Procedural segment of the flight requires no Orientation at all, in order to become Efficient at executing it when the time comes?

I remember what this was like during my first four (4) flight lessons some 20 years ago. I remember not being able to manage the heading (alone) on climb out, let alone pay attention to what ATC was telling me! I distinctly remember that my flight instructor handled the Radios, precisely because I was so darn far behind the Mental Curve.

Had I been able to replicate some of that with a degree of acceptable fidelity inside the simulated environment, I might not have been completely intrepid, but my brain would have known what to expect before hand and that would have resolved much of the fear of screwing up, while freeing up more mental cycles to focus on what was actually going.

These looked like some of the Fundamental Procedures of Piloting out of Class B airspace at the time and I had no clue in which order they should come. I was too busy trying to find the pitch attitude and airspeed, to be worried about talking with ATC.

Talking with ATC in the above scenario? Heck, I had hard enough time keeping the conversation with myself in my own head straight - back then you could forget about me talking with ATC in that scenario. Yet, I can practice that exact same scenario today, talk to both ATC and then Departure, and expose my brain to what that entire process is like many times over - before ever doing it in the real. How can my brain fail to benefit from that?

All I needed help with regarding the above departure scenario was What to expect, When to expect it, Where to expect it, How to handle it, Who I should expect to hear from and Why the whole process and procedure necessary in the first place.

This kind of process is far more Mental than it is Physical. There's a lot of Procedure inside that scenario.

- Might there be a need use rudder pedals to correct for crosswind? Sure.
- Might there be a need look outside and clear for traffic? You bet.
- Flip a page on the knee board? Why not.
- Pull down a visor to block the sun? No problem.
- Hand a barf bag to a passenger who ate too much breakfast? Indeed.
- Trim for climb? Ok.

I don't need memory work for that. Most of that is kinesthetic or close enough to it.

I'm talking about rehearsing Standard Go To Procedures. I'm talking about developing an understanding very early on about What I am doing, Why I am doing it and What comes next. Saving Mental Cycles in reserve for the important nuances of pilot training, by taking care of Standard Go To Mental Procedures at an earlier stage.

Why is this so hard?

But, you're going to do what you want. You're clearly not listening.

And, why are you constantly jumping to conclusions without reading the underlying Premise? You are going over things that is entirely Moot.

My brain will not care that it is simulated - IF - the simulation is done properly. But, it will use those memories stored during the simulation as reference points during the actual.

Simulating Flight Procedures is nothing new. You make it sound as if, I've created some brand new concept - I did not create this stuff. People have been using Flight Simulation for eons - long before either of us were born.

Exhibit "A":

That is the Link Trainer, circa before I was born.

Exhibit "B":

She's the Link Trainer Operator.

Exhibit "C":

That's the B200 simulated cockpit that I'll be using at the Stage III Phase.

With an open minded Instructor, this becomes nothing more than what has been done before, except with a 100 times more fidelity and interactive continuity relative to the simulated environment.

At what point am I going wrong here. If it worked for the U.S. Army Air Corps. and the U.S. Navy, at a much lower level of systems and environmental fidelity, then why will it fail for me with an open minded (competent) CFI?

 

[Henning]

Go ahead to the airport and invest in a flight lesson and it will all become much more obvious to you.

 

[Positive Rate]

That student will be well BEHIND the learning curve, because as soon as a variable hits them, they will do the wrong thing. Conditions vary, and learning to fly means being able to land with a 5 knot headwind instead of calm, being able to deal with an aircraft that doesn't quite make book performance, thermals, varying weight and balance, and so on.

I guess you are arguing with Gregory M. Penglis, or you do not agree with his assessment in his book: The Complete Guide to Flight Instruction, page 63:

...There you are being told to climb, when you don't remember where "here" is, while you stare at the instruments you cannot read. That is why you have trouble in the early hours (of flight instruction).

There is of course, a cure. Standardize the Training. You will cut your training time in half, if you can get your flight instructor to write down specific pitch and power settings for every configuration in normal flight. Memorize them. For each particular pitch and power setting, you will get the same airspeed and rate of climb or descent. You can climb, descend and fly straight and level, using a particular power setting and visual reference where the nose appears relative to the horizon, and do it the same way every time without ever thinking about it. When you don't have to think about how to do it, you can learn to make decisions when to do it.

I have yet to fly a trainer that does not take off and climb at full power, cruise at about 2300 rpm, descend and fly downwind about 2100 rpm, and approach for landing at 1500 rpm, touching down at idle. So much for all the power settings you need to know [he's talking about his Cessna 172].

Your instructor or aircraft manual my require some variation. However, the point is to use the same settings for each particular configuration every time you do it.

- Gregory M. Penglis.

I took that information, applied it to the Cessna 172N in the simulator and all of a sudden the aircraft was manageable and well behaved in all its phases (climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing). It allowed me to start exploring other aspects of the aircraft and to start paying attention to other things beyond merely controlling the airframe.

Before I applied this information, flying the aircraft even in the simulator was a pain in the neck. The aircraft was all over the sky. Learning this information caused me to go study some of the flight dynamics of the Cessna 172.

So, I became aware of Why this particular aircraft likes those particular numbers. It also helped a great deal on the Approach phase and gave me a better understanding of that aircraft's Maximum Flap Extension Speed. The aircraft almost starting flying itself to the runway threshold when I began adjusting RPM to these settings and using the correct Pitch adjustments that he mentions later in the same chapter.

Combining both Pitch and Power settings recommended by Penglis, I was able to Trim the aircraft effortlessly in all phases. It started to click inside my brain, Why this was happening. I then began doing climbs up to 11,000 feet using this information and tying in the effect of Mixture Control Settings on power output as altitude increases. All of it was standard operational stuff that did not require a kinesthetic component.

This one simple example could be applied to a thousand different things related to flight instruction, I would imagine.

So, I can practice this in the simulator before any future lesson begins and then sit down with my open minded instructor, so he/she can fill in the missing pieces about Why this actually works.

To me, that is a powerful method of learning some things related to flying. Now, please explain why this is a bad approach to learning? If I go get hit with a 5 knot crosswind on the approach, then at least I start with a much more Stable Aircraft during that Approach Phase, by understanding and flying the numbers before the 5 knot crosswind has an effect.

However, if I don't understand what numbers should produce Stable Performance, then I won't understand crosswind correction in its proper context, because I'll always be caught correcting crosswind during an approach, from an unstable Pitch, Power and Trim configuration. So, knowing how to make the aircraft stable in the approach phase, helps to better understand the real net/net effect of that 5 knot crosswind from a good performance baseline.

Yes - it would be nuts to read this in a book and then jump go into a real airplane on my own to test it out - just because I could afford to do so. That would be crazy. But, why is it crazy to read this in a book and then go jump into the simulated environment to test it out and see what happens?

Gregory, says his Cessna 172 works pretty well by these numbers. I confirmed that those numbers work pretty well in the simulator and I gained an understanding of Why they work they way they do as well. Where is the mistake being made here?

 

[JBrown243]

When I began my cross country phase again I would pre-fly my cross countries on the simulator before flying the in the plane.

I actually will pre-fly my cross countries to unfamiliar airports using MSFS. I like it because it gives me i general idea of the terrain, landmarks, routes, order of frequencies,and many other cues that I would not have otherwise. When I actually gen in the air for real everything seems to go a bit smoother.

 

[Positive Rate]

About two minutes for the average student. That's how long it takes to explain the relationship between pitch power and trim. We aren't dealing with interplanetary orbital physics here. If a student cannot manage to grasp that relationship, the simulator won't help.

Taking two minutes to explain the relationship is about the same amount of time it takes for the student to completely forget what you explained to them, not a full two minutes later. That's the point.

After you give your two minute explanation, what follow-up does the student get immediately, so that what you explained it two minutes is not forgotten 1 minute later? And, when that same student gets home that day, what will you give them as an exercise to recall what took you two minutes to teach them during that day's lesson plan?

Moreover, if your student had the ability (with your guidance as in instructor) to reinforce what you took two minutes to teach them that day, such that they would show up at the next lesson having ingrained what you gave them, would you tell your student to not take advantage of that opportunity?

 

[JHW]

Jason,

That sort of thing will fade pretty quickly as you fly more. I assume you don't pre-rehearse a trip by car to kroger to get a loaf of bread. Taking your cessna instead of the minivan doesn't need to be much different.

For example, last wed my sister-in-law called my wife and said her house guests bailed and would we like to spend Easter at the beach? My wife called me about 10 in the morning and said she was packing and could we fly that afternoon? Kids got out of school early and we were off. Pre-trip planning was done on my iphone during the drive to the airport. This part 91 flying business doesn't need to be any more complicated than you want to make it.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N2727Y/history/20130327/1730Z/C75/KDTS

 

[Positive Rate]

Wow that's a lot of writing. Probably more the wordy that the ops specs at some companies I've flown for.

Sorry to burst your bubble but we're talking about flying an airplane here, not brain surgery. It's just not that complicated. Driving the typical light and is somewhat more difficult than a Camry and somewhat less so than a hydraulic excavator. My kids could do a pretty fair job by age 9 in the Beechcraft. They're a hazard in the excavator.

I'm sure your nine year old could also operate the VLJ in your hanger as single pilot, RVSM, at night, over the Atlantic and they would also know how to calculate a dry footprint for the flight as well, correct?

I'm sure single pilot in a high-performance jet is just kiddy land for your nine year old.

I'm not preparing for a personal flying career in a Piper Cub. And, I want to be the most competent, safe, effective, knowledgeable and skilled Aviator as I can possibly be, within the realm of my resources. For me, that means learning from the ground-up in such a way that solidifies good knowledge in ways that are effortlessly recalled on-demand and when necessary.

I'm going from nothing (zip) to jet type rating, single pilot certification, RVSM certification and 1,200 to 1,500 hours in two years, with ever long range trip from that point forward above FL310 up to FL410.

Don't I need to be very competent to do that safely, on a routine basis and at a moments notice? I think I need to be more than just competent - I think I need to be very competent - don't you? Why play games with those kind of altitudes, those kind of air speeds, that kind of aircraft performance, that kind of complex airspace and those kinds of high density altitude airport environments?

I don't understand the slack attitude and vibe I'm getting here. What's wrong with striving for perfection in everything you do that has something serious on the line? Would you operate a higher performance jet with that kind of attitude? I would not.

I'm going to start from day one, taking this matter very seriously.

My motto as a pilot will encompass four (4) themes:

1) Safety First
2) Safety Second
3) Safety Third
4) Have some fun if possible

Hey, if I make it to stage four on every single flight - that will be a huge bonus as far as I am concerned.

I've read many NTSB files (sadly). I know this is not all fun and games. You should, too. There are many mistakes that are made by pilots who failed to pay attention to the details, "because it was not rocket science."

I don't get it. You guys are supposed to be Pilots and Aviators. I expect more from you. I expect an attitude of Discipline, Excellence and Good Decision Making when it comes to flying. I expect you to take advantage of opportunities to make yourselves better in the cockpit. Why slam someone else, merely because they want to do the same. That makes no sense to me - whatsoever.

I hear that GA is dying. I hear that the industry needs to grow. I keep reading article after article telling me that GA needs to start doing things different - thinking outside the box - doing things that help to grow and expand its boarders in the United States. I hear that pilot retention is at an all time low and pilot training to full completion has never been lower.

I think the overall attitude in GA needs to change and that starts with its Members and their respective attitudes to Newcomers. That might help the growth curve a bit.

I could see it, if I were talking about becoming a Self Taught Pilot who used FSX to learn everything there was to know about flying. I'm talking about using some technology to augment and boost the learning process and you would have me talking about attempting to fly an aircraft with wings and/or absent any common sense.

Geepers - is what I'm saying really this difficult to grasp? Once again - it is about Orientation to Procedures using an immersive simulation technology. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. Why does that have be the 15th chapter of War & Peace?

 

[Henning]

Taking two minutes to explain the relationship is about the same amount of time it takes for the student to completely forget what you explained to them, not a full two minutes later. That's the point.

After you give your two minute explanation, what follow-up does the student get immediately, so that what you explained it two minutes is not forgotten 1 minute later? And, when that same student gets home that day, what will you give them an an exercise to remember what took you two minutes to teach them during that day's lesson plan?

Moreover, if your student had the ability (with your guidance as in instructor) to reinforce what you took two minutes to teach them that day, such that they would show up at the next lesson having ingrained what you gave them, would you tell your student to not take advantage of that opportunity?

They will never forget because they are operating the plane at the same time the relationship is being demonstrated and explained. Pitch/ trim governs airspeed, power governs climb/descent. You really aren't going to save yourself any significant time and effort. The thing that will hit you in the plane and toss half your sim learning out the window is learning to deal with the kinesthetic sensations and operating in an extra dimension you have never controlled before. As for learning numbers, you can read them all. The thing about using a sim without proper instruction in it is that you risk gaining some particularly bad habits that a sim will not make apparent. Another issue with simple sims is that peripheral vision doesn't come into play, and half the flying clues you get come from your peripheral vision. I'm not saying they have no place in aviation training, but their usefulness is limited. I personally think that the sim has a better place as an after flight/class way of working through thought processes after you have experienced the situation in the plane so you understand exactly what you are looking for and understand what is missing from the sim. As for navigation, yeah, you can work on that in a sim, should be about 3 hours worth or less for anyone that understood 6th grade geometry.

 

[Positive Rate]

Go ahead to the airport and invest in a flight lesson and it will all become much more obvious to you.

I did that 20+ years ago (four lessons) and that is precisely why I like the idea of using such technology for augmentation of the learning process.

I could have learned a lot more, had there been something of intellectual substance bridging the gap between the lessons. I could have showed up for the "next lesson" having better understood the "previous lesson" and How it links to the new material as it surfaces, as well as having better questions to ask of my Instructor.

 

[Positive Rate]

I actually will pre-fly my cross countries to unfamiliar airports using MSFS. I like it because it gives me i general idea of the terrain, landmarks, routes, order of frequencies,and many other cues that I would not have otherwise. When I actually gen in the air for real everything seems to go a bit smoother.

Thank you.

I simply want to use the same to get the flight training a bit smoother as well and then use it as a licensed pilot for some of the exact same reasons you just mentioned above.

At lease a couple of you do get the idea!

 

[JHW]

Yawn. I'll wager my 9 year old will have a pilot's license before you do.

 

[Henning]

I did that 20+ years ago (four lessons) and that is precisely why I like the idea of using such technology for augmentation of the learning process.

I could have learned a lot more, had there been something of intellectual substance bridging the gap between the lessons. I could have showed up for the "next lesson" having better understood the "previous lesson" and How it links to the new material as it surfaces, as well as having better questions to ask of my Instructor.

Exactly, use it as an augmentation between lessons, not before you get into your training or you risk too many bad habits. As close as it may seem, that PC sim has significant differences from the plane.

 

[Positive Rate]

Jason,

That sort of thing will fade pretty quickly as you fly more. I assume you don't pre-rehearse a trip by car to kroger to get a loaf of bread. Taking your cessna instead of the minivan doesn't need to be much different.

Nobody said that he has to do it for the rest of his life. The phrase used was "Competent Pilot." Arriving at a point of competency was the point. Removing some of the mental unknowns by "pre-flying" a particular route, can only enhance competency for that particular flight.

In addition, he can also use a Weather Engine to set the weather conditions to be inclusive of the local area on arrival. So, if there might be a need to shoot an ILS down to minimums, he can "walk through" that scenario as many times as he likes, before actually encountering it in the real.

I cannot imagine how that can be a bad thing.

He can set-up alternates en route and create scenarios where those alternates become necessary (pick an in-flight emergency). I'm sure there are any other things he can do in a "pre-flying" mode that I am still learning about, but cannot articulate just yet.

 

[Positive Rate]

...I would suggest you get good at using the mouse to look around and keep doing that all the time like your head would move in real life. Being locked on the panel is not going to help unless you are only focusing on IFR training.

Try EZdok and a good Webcam. You won't need the mouse for that. You can simply move your head just like you would in a normal aircraft, to see outside the aircraft and inside the VC as well. This frees your hands for using the Yoke and TPM (which I also suggest you get).

Thanks for the input.

...on my laptop in x-plane I can hold the right mouse button all the time and look around like in real life.

I use a 27 inch monitor. I'll be moving to a 40 or 50 inch monitor after I go measure the actual width of the lateral view sitting inside a Cessna T210 and Duke B60 which is where I'm going to spend my virtual Private and virtual Instrument time, as well as the virtual Mult-Engine (normally aspirated, not the turbine) time.

Try a larger monitor just on GP alone. It is more immersive by far. A multi-monitor set-up is the best of all, however.

You will not get any feeling for the G force, sudden drops, wind gusts and bumps that you get in real life, but it should absolutely give you an idea what to expect when you start training as long as you are flying cessna's and not 747's.

Right - I'm not looking to replicate the kinesthetic components and I won't be doing any 747 flying. The aircraft models that I will be using, match the aircraft that I will actually be flying in the real.

Also, the things you feel so dang confident doing on a sim, gets a whole lot more real in a real plane. things that I wouldn't flinch on in a sim, can often get my blood pumping in real life. btw, I would suggest you get your 3rd class medical now to make sure all of this is not a waste of time. Good luck!

I just want to replicate the Procedures with the Mental follow-up.

I could still probably pass a Class I medical in the Air Force, if necessary. I think I'm still ok for the civilian class III.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Positive Rate]

They will never forget because they are operating the plane at the same time the relationship is being demonstrated and explained.

I forgot all the details of what my instructor was teaching me in the first few lessons. And, even if I did remember, I had no way (back then) to do anything to reinforce what he taught, other than go fly a simulator and I don't recall any of the available sims at the flying club being anywhere near as immersive as FSX or X-Plane can be today.

Today, lots of the GA aircraft can be modeled to a fairly high degree of fidelity and accuracy in operations/functionality.

Pitch/ trim governs airspeed, power governs climb/descent. You really aren't going to save yourself any significant time and effort.

How many new flight training students do you know of, who can articulate that and then go out and execute on it while knowing Why they are doing what they are doing, to the point of being able to make adjustments in Pitch, Power, Trim, to achieve the configuration they want or need, when they want it or need it?

I was never told this during my early stages of flight instruction. So, I struggled to make sense of Why the aircraft behaves and performs the way it does, in the basic phases of flight.

Furthermore, had I had the opportunity to receive the information you just gave (which is what Penglis gives in his book) and then go home and actually practice it to some degree of acceptable immersion, I would enter each successive flight lesson having a better Mental Awareness of what I was doing and Why, I was doing it.

It is not enough to simply tell someone What to do. In this environment, they also need to know Why it matters and What happens When they don't do it. That will set-up the learning process in their brain a lot more effectively than simple "follow my lead" instructions.

The thing that will hit you in the plane and toss half your sim learning out the window is learning to deal with the kinesthetic sensations and operating in an extra dimension you have never controlled before.

Why? Why does having none of the mental orientation before hand equate to being a better solution for the student pilot? How does not have any concept at all, equate to placing the student in a better position to learn?

If the student can come to each lesson better Mentally Prepared for the instruction they are about to receive, how does not free up more cycles in the brain to deal with the new challenge of learning how to deal with the kinesthetics of flying?

Logically, I'm having a very hard time positioning the lack of exposure to being better than not having any exposure at all, compounded and multiplied by the reality of now having to learn how to cope with the kinesthetics of flying.

If the student is hit with the new kinesthetic elements -and- they are already in possession of the logical concepts to a fairly descent degree, won't the student have an easier time integrating the new information into the brain that is brought about through now having to deal with the new dimensions of kinesthetics?

I'm trying to understand the logic you just put forth. Thanks.

As for learning numbers, you can read them all.

That's why I read the book and quoted the page in this thread! I am reading books and manuals. However, I am finding out that being able to apply that information in some useful way with a high degree of repetition that you cannot recreate in any real aircraft (unless you fly an obscene number of hours each time), is a very useful tool for capturing the essence of the Procedures being repeated.

Example:

Procedurally speaking - how many variety of approaches (visual, precision, non-precision) does the typical student get to fly in a Cessna 172 in a single day in the real? Now, how many variety of approaches can that same student do in that same Cessna 172 in a single day in the simulator?

If repetition is the mother of skill, then having the ability to do more with less, must be a win for the student pilot, no?

The thing about using a sim without proper instruction in it is that you risk gaining some particularly bad habits that a sim will not make apparent.

But, that's not what this thread is about. I stipulated that this project requires the input from a competent pilot (either CFI/CFII or a pilot with good skills).

So, I would not be out there repetitively going through the same "procedures" without knowing that the procedures are accurate. So, this would involve input from competently trained people.

That's why I am here and not on a simulator forum!

Another issue with simple sims is that peripheral vision doesn't come into play, and half the flying clues you get come from your peripheral vision.

I am not attempting to replicate the full sense of "flying cues." Those kinds of visual flying cues relate to the spatial orientation component of flying, which is connected to the kinesthetic realm through the Visual Cortex and translated by the brain into a "sense" of relative position.

I'm talking about replicating to a high degree of fidelity, the Procedural aspects of flying and orienting my brain to the logical components therein. That's all I'm talking about.

I'm not saying they have no place in aviation training, but their usefulness is limited.

Limited, indeed. I would agree. I would also agree that they do have their place in aviation training, too.

I personally think that the sim has a better place as an after flight/class way of working through thought processes after you have experienced the situation in the plane so you understand exactly what you are looking for and understand what is missing from the sim.

Ok, now THAT was one of the most insightful things I've heard anyone say inside this thread thus far. Thank you!

I plan to use the simulator this way as stipulated in the OP. Not just as a preemptive tool for Orientation on the Procedures, but as a Gap Filling tool between flight lessons with the guidance of the CFI/CFII.

I want to be able to review in the sim, those things that were not very clear to me during the actual flight lesson and then show up at the next lesson with better questions, a better understanding of what I missed the first time and the ability to demonstrate that I can actually execute on what I could not do before, or that I can execute it more efficiently now.

Now, that was helpful information!

As for navigation, yeah, you can work on that in a sim, should be about 3 hours worth or less for anyone that understood 6th grade geometry.

I never took geometry in the 6th grade (those darn public schools!). I did not get conceptual geometry until the 7th grade. I did however, end up with a one of my degrees in applied mathematics. Some public schools are tough that way when it comes to offering advanced subjects to their students. Sounds like you went to a nice private school! My folks could not afford that for me - but I'm sure I would have enjoyed the opportunity!

If you take a close look at the pic that I posted of the B200 (above), you will notice two Garmin GNS530 WAAS units sitting above an Avidyne Wx unit in the stack. Well, those two units are not just pretty looking graphics, they actually work.

I've integrated a dual GNS530W configuration and will remove the Avidyne Malfunction unit (sorry) Avidyne Multifunction unit, and replace it with the GPS 500 for Weather & Traffic. The reason I'm simulating this is because I want to be able to use this type of equipment in the real.

As you know, many of these types of technologies can sometimes be archaic when it comes to how they function. Moving from screen to screen, flipping through menus, tabbing through pages, etc., can all be a bit frustrating for some pilots. So, I've downloading the Garmin Trainer for the 400 and 500 WAAS Series, the G1000 Trainer and the GPS 500 Trainer, which are the applications that drive the actual units you see in the pic.

The point here, is to become Oriented and Familiar with the basic functioning of these units during in-flight operations, when entering and extracting information/data from these systems becomes necessary. I want to be able to simulate those operational procedures before I have to use them in the real world.

Again, just trying to develop an understanding of what will be required of me as someone going from zero to jet type rating, single pilot certification, RVSM certification and operating a VLJ (often at night) with people I really care about on-board.

Thanks for the input!

 

[Positive Rate]

Yawn. I'll wager my 9 year old will have a pilot's license before you do.

He might. He might also be running a business before me. Carrying clients and customers in his company's jet before me. Having the responsibility to be in multiple locations around the world on short notice before me. And, running into all kinds of different flying conditions in a multitude of different airspace environments before me.

All of that is possible - just not very probable.

 

[Positive Rate]

Exactly, use it as an augmentation between lessons, not before you get into your training or you risk too many bad habits. As close as it may seem, that PC sim has significant differences from the plane.

Can you give me an example of a bad habit that I might form from using the simulator, that a knowledgeable flight instructor and/or very skilled pilot cannot help me avoid, with proper guidance when using the simulator before starting real flight training?

I have eight more months to go before the actual flight training begins, but I am doing other things that preclude me from hauling down to the airport to take "introductory" flights for the next several months every other day.

So, I'd appreciate knowing what those bad habits look like right now - that way I could avoid them like the plague in the sim.

As far as using the sim as something of an unofficial Gap Trainer between lessons - that's definitely going to be part of the plan. I can't imagine not taking advantage of it in that way as well.

 

[Positive Rate]

Ok, I think I've tried to get back to everyone in this phase after introducing my intentions.

I need to get back to some aircraft configurations in the sim to get it ready. You know why I am here. You know what I am planning. You know why I am planning it. You know what tools I will be using to accomplish it.

When I return, I will have my first set of questions ready. I hope to get some good answers from some open minded pilots here. As for the not so open minded pilot here, thanks for the input and your opinions - I appreciate the stern warnings about learning bad habits and getting ahead of myself. No doubt, I don't want to do that.

For the more open minded pilots out there who would like to help - I appreciate your contribution to this project and your willingness to understand where I am coming from about using such technology as a tool to augment the real world training and preemptively engage in some Orientation to Procedures that will be better understood with some early exposure in an accurate manner.

I'll study some subject first, figure out what I can through research and then ask some questions while simultaneously trying things out in the sim. I'll video some of the flights, which should make critiquing the process much easier for you. You'll be able to see what I did right and what I did wrong - which should make corrections that much easier. Other things that don't require a video, I'll just post a question about and read the answers.

If nothing else, it will be an interesting journey/project.

Thanks to all for the help!

 

[Headspace]

Ask yourself this: With the costs associated with training, why don't students "pre-train" in desktop simulators? There are a bunch of university flight schools, and the military, who could save a fortune doing that if it actually worked. The people who do this for a living are not ignorant of the available resources out there. Google for DOT/FAA/AM-97/11, "Transfer of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices." Look at what it says about instrument flying skills and transferability. Then read some more history on the Link trainer and note that it was never intended as a source of primary training. Its need originated to teach instrument flying skills, during a time when scheduled operations (to deliver the mail) became a necessity and thus bad weather flying was unavoidable.

There is a certain element of the flight sim gaming community (and I am not suggesting that you are a part of that, but a lot of what you've written sounds like some of what shows up over there) that thinks there's some kind of transferability between playing a game (which is what any desktop FS software not used as part of a training curriculum effectively is) and flying a real aircraft. Maybe for stuff like switchology and learning what instruments do, but not for the majority of it, especially not if you haven't been taught to fly. There is a reason the FAA only allows such a small amount of sim time with instructor supervision for a few of the ratings.

I would hit the books and wait to use the desktop stuff until after the instrument rating is done, and I say this as someone who plays DCS and X-Plane on a regular basis. It's just not the same thing, and never will be. Especially without an instructor there with you.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.

Do you also argue with your doctor when you don't like something he tells you, even though he's the expert in the field, not you? Well, that's what you're doing here. You came here to get advice from experts. You have a group of people with an astounding amount of combined experience in the aviation industry. People with a wide array of experiences and knowledge. You came to get help from the experts, and when they didn't agree with you and praise your intelligence, you're arguing their advice.

Seems like with all the time you have and will spend with your fake sim flying and sitting here arguing, you couldn't easily squeeze in a couple hours a week in a real plane at a real airport. I call B.S. on that you don't have the time.

Let's take a look at the 5 hazardous attitudes in aviation:
Resignation -
Anti-authority - check
Impulsivity - check
Invulnerability - check
Macho - check

I'll keep a lookout for you in an NTSB report when you turn your VLJ into a submarine over the Atlantic next year.

 

[Henning]

Can you give me an example of a bad habit that I might form from using the simulator, that a knowledgeable flight instructor and/or very skilled pilot cannot help me avoid, with proper guidance when using the simulator before starting real flight training?

I have eight more months to go before the actual flight training begins, but I am doing other things that preclude me from hauling down to the airport to take "introductory" flights for the next several months every other day.

So, I'd appreciate knowing what those bad habits look like right now - that way I could avoid them like the plague in the sim.

As far as using the sim as something of an unofficial Gap Trainer between lessons - that's definitely going to be part of the plan. I can't imagine not taking advantage of it in that way as well.

That's just it, you need the instructor on hand at the very beginning to avoid these errors, trimming, or lack of being the primary, from developing into habits. The law of Primacy is a ***** to break. If you learn it wrong in the beginning, you spend a lot of time, effort, and grief unlearning them and replacing them with the proper habits. If you have the time for the sim and instructor, you have the time to do that initial training in the plane where you get the proper biofeedback from the plane. You can then go reinforce that in the sim.

 

[MAKG1]

Geepers - is what I'm saying really this difficult to grasp? Once again - it is about Orientation to Procedures using an immersive simulation technology. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. Why does that have be the 15th chapter of War & Peace?

It's not at all difficult to grasp. You're just wrong and can't accept that.

We've all dealt with checklists and procedures. That's just not what we spend the bulk of our training time on.

Get in an airplane today. Not 20 years ago. Spend an hour or so replicating that training book you misquoted. A 172N will generally like to approach to land at 1500, but if you're trying to maintain a glideslope in a big headwind, it will be more than that. You can always get down like the misquote says. The key is getting down at the right place, too. Follow the procedure you described and you'll make holes in the ground.

I won't respond to most of the BS, because it is exactly that. Take an hour in an airplane and stop calling us all idiots until you do.

 

[JasonM]

Vr, I don't know why you are quoting me on all of those statements. Please edit that.

 

[Positive Rate]

Ask yourself this: With the costs associated with training, why don't students "pre-train" in desktop simulators?

Huh? I don't understand the question because some of them do!

I think you have to try to understand what type of "pre-training" I'm referring to. Again, the focus for me right now is just an Orientation to Procedures. That involves "some" Memory Work and that kind of thing can be done on a desktop simulator.

Why?

One word: Fidelity.

The level of fidelity in the logical functions, procedures and processes that are capable with today's desktop computing power, is rather amazing when you stop to think about where this kind of technology was 10 to 20 years ago. That level of fidelity has the potential to yield a visually immersive experience that is "similar" (not the same") to any full-motion simulator and at a much lower cost (I am not talking about the kinesthetics of flight simulation in full-motion devices).

So, the Visual Cortex is being "stimulated" at a respectable level these days with the correct desktop set-up. What do I mean by "correct?" The ten (10) elements of any good baseline desktop flight simulation seeking a higher degree of immersion are as follows:

1. CPU/GPU/Memory/Storage (a dedicated box is optimal)
2. Accurate Aircraft Models
3. Up to date Navadata & Navaids
4. Access to Live ATC Coverage
5. Live HD Weather Engine
6. HD Airport Modeling
7. HD Topological Modeling
8. 27-inch Flat Panel Monitor (or larger)
9. Physical Yoke/Rudder Pedals/TPM (or Throttle Quadrant)
10. IR or WebCam Position Head Tracking

Doing that will yield something that can be as "realistic" as this:

Again, the goal is not to learn how to physically fly a Cessna Mustang I. But, given the level of fidelity and accuracy of this aircraft model and the computing power behind it, the goal would be the Orientation of the Procedures necessary to fly the Cessna Mustang I - again, not the kinesthetics of flying it.

"Transfer of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices." Look at what it says about instrument flying skills and transferability. Then read some more history on the Link trainer and note that it was never intended as a source of primary training.

Again, this is not about "primary training" and every single publication in the "modern era" of aviation that I have read relative to flight training aides, has concluded that if the level of immersion and fidelity is high enough, there can be benefit to the usage of computer based flight simulation somewhere within both the flight training and the flight currency process.

FSX won't run on a 286AT box.

...but a lot of what you've written sounds like some of what shows up over there) that thinks there's some kind of transferability between playing a game (which is what any desktop FS software not used as part of a training curriculum effectively is) and flying a real aircraft.

Here's an excerpt from Binghamton University. Document Title: "How the Brain Learns & Remembers" (google it):

Dietrich believes one key to how the brain’s machinery works is analogies — the wilder, the better. “Analogies happen nearly daily for most people,” he says. “Often it’s more frequent than daily. As near as we can tell, you have no control over it. The mind uses these comparisons to understand new concepts.” Dietrich’s team is drawn to this analogy-creating tendency because “what’s really interesting about the mind is this: The farther apart two ideas are, the deeper the thinking involved.”

There is a lot more valuable information out there from University Studies to Non-Profit Organization Focus Groups, in the area of Adult Learning Through Simulation - just google it. However, one of the key contributing factors to how well the simulated based learning turns out, is whether or not there is any Post Exercise Debriefing of the student after the simulated experience, which draws the students mind from the simulation itself, back to a good theoretical understanding of the content being simulated.

Maybe for stuff like switchology and learning what instruments do, but not for the majority of it, especially not if you haven't been taught to fly. There is a reason the FAA only allows such a small amount of sim time with instructor supervision for a few of the ratings.

In fact, it is my understanding that the FAA is expanding simulation time as valid training time. Lots of newer would-be CRJ pilots as just one example, spend a good deal of time in the CRJ simulator.

Go take a close look at this company: http://www.zuluflighttraining.com/. The based their entire program on a "Simulated Supported Training." Along with motion simulation where students engage the kinesthetic components of flight, they also use a BATD G1000 Desktop Simulator for both fixed prop and complex aircraft.

I would hit the books and wait to use the desktop stuff until after the instrument rating is done, and I say this as someone who plays DCS and X-Plane on a regular basis. It's just not the same thing, and never will be. Especially without an instructor there with you.

Reading all the time. The difference now is that I'm reading AND applying what I'm learning in written material. And, yes - there does need to be a competent Pilot and/or preferably a CFI involved in the before flight Brief and after flight Brief, I would imagine.

Again, this is not about comprehensive Flight Training. It is about getting a head-start on certain aspects of flying that deal with recurring protocol, memory work, process and procedural orientation, logical expectation development (learning what comes next), process cycle orientation (what are the steps for achieving an "X" -vs- a "Y" result) and general aircraft systems orientation, including how the equipment is supposed to logically function inside the cockpit - all the way to Emergency Procedure Simulation relative to an understanding of the aircraft systems that drive them. Not to mention live ATC communications protocols - which is a huge benefit to the student pilot.

If you know anything about X-Plane and/or FSX, then you know that with the ten (10) elements listed above, you can simulate at a high enough level of fidelity that allows for working on the things I just mentioned above.

 

[Brad Z]

Why am I having a chilling decade-old flashback to the days of Mxsmanic on usenet newsgroups?

 

[Positive Rate]

Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.

Don't give answers to questions until you fully understand the question.

Do you also argue with your doctor when you don't like something he tells you, even though he's the expert in the field, not you?

In the past, frequently.

My mother was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes and subsequently treated by medical professionals who would have killed on multiple occasions while visiting an emergency room, had I not been there to STOP certain medication that was about to be prescribed by a Doctor.

Why?

My mother was not merely a Type I patient, she was also in complete Renal Failure and could not produce urine. Most renal patients in that condition do not tolerate high doses of narcotics in the form of painkillers, because they body can no longer secrete the chemical component of things like hydromorphone that can lead to complete temporal neurological dysfunction among many other things.

Why?

In renal patients who cannot produce urine, the active chemicals in drugs such as dilaudid, remain in the blood stream and can concentrate inside the brain, as well as other vital organs in the body. When the human brain is forced to take a bath in highly potent schedule II iopiod class drug, the net effect on the patient can be devastating.

How many times have I stopped that from happening inside hospitals where Doctors who KNEW they were dealing with a renal patient that did not produce urine? Too many. Far too many.

My mother's initial primary care Doctor put her on a total of eighteen (18) different drugs at one point in her diabetic life cycle. After having studied Diabetes for some time (years), I had more than one verbal interaction with my mother's PMD about the potential side-effects of certain medications being used in combination with each other, given their mode, classification, scheduling and resultant physical effects on my mother's health. After too many trips to the emergency room and too many 6 month stays in borderline "rehab" facilities (dressed up convalescent hospitals) that my mother's PMD ordered - I fired my mother's Doctor, by essentially pulling my mothers from her care and into the care of a well known and highly respected Elder Care Program.

I was later told by my mother's Endocrinologist and Cardiologist one day that my decision to move her was probably one of the best decisions that could ever have been made for her long term.

My mother's Gastroenterologist misdiagnosed her three (3) times. I politely suggested to the GI that he look at the possibility that my mother was not suffering from gastroenteropathy, but a more rare form of Autonomic Neuropathy of the Stomach. My research into the matter lead me to small branch of research that had been done by a former GI specialist and was now a Researcher. I read all of his White Papers and familiarized myself with his concepts before approaching one of his colleagues at a well know University Medical Center for advice. That Doctor told me that based on the symptomatic trail of my mother, that she was probably a good candidate for having this rare form of stomach neuropathy.

I told my mother's GI that I would be taking her to see the new specialist and he thought I was wasting time. It turns out that my mother did indeed have this more rare form of autonomic neuropathy of the stomach, which wold never show up on any of her GI specialists examinations, whether endoscopy and/or flexible sigmoidoscopy. Without making that move, we would have never known.

Have I argued with a Doctor or two over the years? You be the judge of that. I simply call it being concerned about the details and trying to take every opportunity to get correct answers to the best of my ability.

Primary Care Physicians, don't always have time to stay up on the latest information in a field of specialty. Even "Specialist" themselves, might not be fully aware of some of the vary niche and rare research being conducted, especially what that work is being done in another country - which was the case with my mother.

It is in these times that a family with the ability to dig into tough subjects and learn them at a level necessary to see potential connections to current symptoms and current treatment of a loved one, that life can be expanded and/or made slightly more comfortable for the one suffering.

Now, you tell me. Did I make the right calls in those two (2) instances by disagreeing with two (2) different Doctors? Or, did I exercise good situational awareness and make good decisions?

My mother survived in total renal failure doing dialysis three (3) times per week with a rare form of autonomic neuropathy of the stomach, mostly non-ambulatory due to diabetic neuropathy of the lower extremities, many years longer than some of the much younger people that she used to see in dialysis each time she went. I've been told that how she was taken care of by her son, had something to do the prolonging of her life. She finally passed away about two years ago.

If I had it to do all over again, I'd argue with those two Doctors the exact same way - without question. Her life depended on somebody arguing for her. I'm glad and honored that I had the opportunity to do it. My other three brothers would not lift a finger to help. So, somebody had to step up, learn about what needed to be done and then do it.

It might be a good idea if you went back and re-read the title of this thread along with several others. The point of the thread has been sorely missed by some.

 

[Positive Rate]

That's just it, you need the instructor on hand at the very beginning to avoid these errors, trimming, or lack of being the primary, from developing into habits. The law of Primacy is a ***** to break. If you learn it wrong in the beginning, you spend a lot of time, effort, and grief unlearning them and replacing them with the proper habits.

That part was understood as I noted in several other posts. It is also the reason why I came here and not the Sim Forums with such a thread. I figured that there had to be at least some real pilots on a forum with the name "Pilots of America." With a forum subsection named "Pilot Training," it was just a brain decision to make.

How can anyone go wrong asking Pilots of America, especially in the Pilot Training subsection, about using calculated angles based on the runway heading to determine actual aircraft heading to be flown in order to set-up "X" type of approach. Or, what the mental process is for determining the correct time for initiating the descent from cruising altitude, in order to arrive at the airport on or near traffic pattern altitude for non-instrument approaches. Or, a million and one other process oriented things that a I pilot will someday have to learn from their CFI, but could start learning about right now!

LOL! At some point, I expect the really honest people to stand up in this thread and simply admit that they were being intentionally obtuse on purpose and they really do realize that all I'm asking about is stuff that indeed can be practiced on the simulator without getting into memory trouble down the road.

None of this stuff requires the development of any bad habits. It is nothing more than a conceptual Orientation of Procedures and the mental preparation that goes into executing them. Nothing more than that.

I'm not planning on going out sitting for my Written, Oral and then taking ,y Flight Exam with a DPE next Tuesday, guys! I'm not going that far. I just want some Orientation to things that don't require me getting into trouble.

If you have the time for the sim and instructor, you have the time to do that initial training in the plane where you get the proper biofeedback from the plane. You can then go reinforce that in the sim.

Already stipulated in another post. I do not have time for actual right now. Actual won't begin for over 8 months. I am at least 25 miles from a potential training airport and with traffic out here, that's more like 45 minutes to 1.5 hours (potentially). I don't have time to break away right now. However, my desktop is about 1 second away and FSX takes about 90 seconds to load-up with an aircraft ready to go on the ramp.

Besides, flying right now misses the point. I've already had four (4) flight lessons. That was more than 20 years ago, but I remember certain aspects of each one. In every flight, there was the fear of doing something stupid, simply because certain fundamental components to basic flying which were mostly procedural in nature.

My brain spent more time locked in on processes and procedures that could have been automatic, had I had the ability to practice them correctly at home prior to the lesson and after each lesson. That would have removed that huge FEAR spike the comes in the "next lesson" when you really aren't sure about what you learned in the "previous lesson."

A lot of that was just a matter of getting familiar with procedures. Why not get familiar with them now and then take that familiarity (not expertise) with me into the new set of lessons coming up, so that I'm not wasting brain cycles on stuff that could be readily under my control by the time the real lessons begin.

I can't do the actual right now - but I can spend some time flying a desk for a while, until I can get a schedule that allows the real training to begin.

This should not be too difficult to understand.

 

[Positive Rate]

Vr, I don't know why you are quoting me on all of those statements. Please edit that.

Thanks. It looks like I caught all my mistakes. Let me know if you see more and I'll correct them.

 

[Positive Rate]

In the end: I got my PPL after about 43 hours of flying, and I have a pretty good headstart on my IR training process now, too.

Thank you, Roddie! I really do appreciate your contribution and reference points about what you were oriented to before your actual flight training began.

It seems like you learned some concepts that lowered the spike in fear during your actual training, because you did not have to slice up your mental cycles on stuff that you could study on the sim.

You also mentioned VATSIM. People jumped all over me for mentioning the use of a desktop simulator in this kind of "pre-training." Yet, I did some homework and decided that PilotEdge would offer a better "real world" experience in the Los Angeles ARTCC area. So, I went out of my way to make sure that I was utilizing the best in class Live ATC Model and got no credit for having done that on this forum. I'm glad you used VATSIM and learned something about Airspace before having to operate in it with a real aircraft.

I'll be using PilotEdge for the same exact reason, but also because of the guaranteed coverage. Even though the area is smaller (only the ZLA) the coverage you get with a Live Controller is guaranteed.

Hey! You did not mention the Weather stuff. I have only done this one time because I do not want to learn bad habits and I want to wait until I understand the process a bit more - but I loaded up an airport over the boarder in Canada and set the weather to be common for the Northeast during the fall months. Geepers! It was tough.

I had never flown in the clouds before - but hey - it is a sim. I can make mistakes and learn from them. I launched from some field in Canada and flew to Boeing Field in Washington State, with no more than a few miles of visibility in either direction and breaking cloud layers below 2,100 feet.

I figured out how to use the runway heading to set-up X-hand traffic when I could not see the airport below. I luckily began my descent from 10,100 feet and arrived near the airport area at 1,500 feet. I learned how to ask ATC for a Vectors relative to my position (otherwise, I would have flown into the side of a mountain without even seeing it).

What I mostly learned is just how much I did NOT know!

It gave me a real deep respect for Instrument Flying, both the Art and the Science. Now, I can't wait for the real instrument training to begin. I don't mess with those kinds of clouds anymore right now - not until I develop a basic understanding of instrument flying. I really don't want to develop bad habits - like calling ATC every 90 seconds for Vectors. That just won't cut mustard in the real world. So, I know when to back off certain "simulated" events.

I set-up sunny weather, stay in the local area that I am familiar with and just work on radios, headings, altitudes, speed control and stabilized descents for now. I don't know enough to do anything more than that right now. That's why I am here.

There's a lot to learn and I can't wait for the real thing to begin!

Thanks again for your post - it means a lot.

 

[taters]

Jesus Christ there are some long post here...

 

[DutchessFlier]

Your Quote, Positive Rate:


"A lot of that was just a matter of getting familiar with procedures. Why not get familiar with them now and then take that familiarity (not expertise) with me into the new set of lessons coming up, so that I'm not wasting brain cycles on stuff that could be readily under my control by the time the real lessons begin."

I am no gift to aviation. I am a teacher, a pilot, and was exposed to the PC Flightsim world like so many of us are/were. You insist on justifying your position on virtually every topic under this thread, regarding substituting FS for actual flight training, and when the vast majority of skilled, experienced, and "real-world" pilots and instructors tell you the truth, that this substitution is not a reality, you refuse to listen.

You ask for advice, then you recoil at the advice given when it doesn't match your world view on flight training. This is why you are perceived as being dangerous, and in aviation, the danger is not just to yourself, but to every other aviator and passenger sharing the airspace with you.

Honestly, based on what you have written here, you should not be a pilot in command of an aircraft. If you don't understand why, then all the more reason for the admonition. When you do understand why, and take appropriate steps in your personal reality to do so, you may be on the path to assuming the responsibility that comes with flying in the real world.

This isn't a sim game.

Right now, you come across as totally and overwhelmingly clueless, stubborn and sadly misguided.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Jesus Christ there are some long post here...

Instead of spending all this time writing novels trying to figure out how to shorted training, just use the time to get in a plane and fly!

 

[LifeInverted]

Honestly, based on what you have written here, you should not be a pilot in command of an aircraft. If you don't understand why, then all the more reason for the admonition. When you do understand why, and take appropriate steps in your personal reality to do so, you may be on the path to assuming the responsibility that comes with flying in the real world.

This isn't a sim game.

Right now, you come across as totally and overwhelmingly clueless, stubborn and sadly misguided.

 

[JasonM]

VR, I can just imagine you now in a real plane.

VR - "blah blah ground, Cessna 1234, ready to taxi to the active"

GND - "Cessna 1234, taxi via A/C/B/E, hold short runway 12"

VR - "blah blah ground, I cant taxi via A to C to B then E. That isn't in the correct order. I need to explain to you how it should be. On paragraph 93 of my simulated taxi manual, which btw, I wrote by myself , it clearly states that I should taxi via A/B/C/D then E. The reasons for this are clearly observed by reviewing the engineering plans I created that modify the process in which we are to taxi from A to E. Now, keep in mind, I have never actually taxied from A to E, but since I have created documents from my simulated experiment, you are completely wrong."

GND - ...

 

[iflyforfun]

Why am I having a chilling decade-old flashback to the days of Mxsmanic on usenet newsgroups?

WOW, that is a flash back ... very funny

If I win the lottery, I'm going to hire a detective to track Mxsmanic down and see how that all worked out.

 

[JHW]

VR, I can just imagine you now in a real plane.

I can't. I imagine s/he is a 15 year old kid in his parent's basement. Probably listening to a certain Brad Paisley song as he types.

 

[saracelica]

VR, I wish you good luck in your studies! I have my PPL (did it all in an airplane) and just now working on my IR and my brain is exploding just reading the book about the rules and regulations and everything. You're doing them all at once? Hope you got a pile of money to spend for all those certificates. Friend of mine (in his 20's) got all of them through CFII and he went $50k in debt and he did it at one of those accelerated schools. So again good luck let us know when you Solo!

 

[gkaiser]

I thought this was interesting..the flight school, American Flyers, is pushing using Microsoft Flight simulator for BOTH PPL + Instrument training. For $1,300 you get a laptop w/yoke/rudder/throttle quadrant and Microsoft Flight Simulator..their claiming it'll save you $3,000+ of Flight time hours by using MS Flight Sim Instead......

http://www.americanflyers.net/fps/default.htm

Interesting to see a larger training school pushing Flight sim for PPL + IR.

 

[dell30rb]

I thought this was interesting..the flight school, American Flyers, is pushing using Microsoft Flight simulator for BOTH PPL + Instrument training. For $1,300 you get a laptop w/yoke/rudder/throttle quadrant and Microsoft Flight Simulator..their claiming it'll save you $3,000+ of Flight time hours by using MS Flight Sim Instead......

http://www.americanflyers.net/fps/default.htm

Interesting to see a larger training school pushing Flight sim for PPL + IR.

I think they are just tryin to make some MOO LAH $$$$$

If you can sell it back to them that might not be a bad deal. I found MS flight sim did help with my instrument rating but for PPL I just don't see the value.

my entire PPL was about $4500