Using Flight Simulation for Procedures & Skills Orientation

[MAKG1]

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

Lessee. Cheap laptop $400, MSFS $50, Saitek rudder pedals and yoke/throttle combo $350. Yeah, I'd say their markup is pretty hefty.

 

[Headspace]

What is that whole MSFS package going to do for you before the rating? It makes no sense.

I deliberately stopped playing DCS during the time I was practicing for my IA ride because I didn't want it to affect the mental picture of how fast the airplane I was going to do the ride in was on an approach, vs the much faster aircraft in DCS (Category A to D is a big difference). Realism in games is a double edged sword; it can screw you up if you aren't careful.

I did as much sim time in an FTD as the FAA allows, but under instructor supervision. And this CFII knew the FTD extremely well.

 

[Seanaldinho]

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.

I don't know... in my opinion if you learn what to do at first and when to do it than you can learn the why later.

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?

Staring at the panel for one. Making your patterns far to large if no one is telling you when to start turns. Another is the yoke or joystick youre going to be using has almost no resistance on it. In comparison a real set of controls take a bit more muscle to move the way you want.

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!

This!

 

[gkaiser]

Oh their definitely making huge money. I'm sure their getting the yoke/rudder/throttle quadrant at a bulk discount from CH...same with laptop & msfs...i don't buy that your saving $3,000 in air-time training by using it....at least definitely not with the PPL. I use to goof around with MSFS before i started my flight training..since starting my training other to goof around with vor tracking I really haven't found a legit use for it...and actually find it more frustrating but then again i dont have the yoke/rudder/all that junk..i'd rather spend that money on air time.

 

[Positive Rate]

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

Wrong about what exactly? This is not a question of right or wrong. It is a question about Orientation to Procedure. This is not about a full spectrum flight training program using a desktop flight simulator in some kind of primary training mode. That's where people have gone "wrong" here. Those trying to force an issue that does not exist, is what's "wrong."

It is "wrong" to conclude that this thread had or has anything to do with Primary Flight Training. That's what's "wrong."

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

If you don't like the word "Procedures" then think of it as Orientation to Basic Concepts. If you don't like that terminology, then think of it as Orientation to Fundamental Themes. If that won't get you to a point that you like, then try Orientation to Basic Ideas.

This is not full engagement kinesthetic based flight training. This is simply an idea about exposing the human brain to a limited set of concepts and ideas routinely engaged by VFR and Instrument Rated pilots alike, that involved in-cockpit activities related to Instruments, Avionics, Air Traffic Control Communications and Aircraft System.

What could be "wrong" with attempting that?

Get in an airplane today. Not 20 years ago. Spend an hour or so replicating that training book you misquoted.

You claim that it was misquoted but you did not provide the corrected quote. So, how does anyone know whether or not you actually read the book yourself?

The quote was typed directly from page 63. Had you read the book, you would know what it says.

Furthermore, I spoke with the author of the book by phone some 20 years ago from my home one evening after work. I know what the author wrote on page 63 and I know what he meant when he wrote it.

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.

Your argument is with the author of the book. Furthermore, you inject a variable that the author was not intending to address. The book is 517 pages deep. The author did not intend to discuss "big headwinds" during an approach to landing on page 63, of a 517 page book. The author was specifically taking the time in the early stages of the book, to address one of the primary reasons why he feels that so many initial Student Pilots go lacking in their understanding about how to control their aircraft.

He makes the clear point that if the Instructors of the world would simply sit down with their Students and go over the baseline Pitch|Power|Trim settings of their training aircraft and teach the Student (first) how to establish basic (fundamental) control of said aircraft during the most basic of flight profiles (take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing), that the Student would be able to free up their brain for more nuanced subjects such as dealing with "big headwinds" while trying to remain on "glide-slope" during an approach to landing.

This is precisely the key point of this thread. If that same student has an early mental framework for using those fundamental procedures that allows him/her to stabilize the aircraft during those basic segments of the flight profile, then they have just that many more brain cycles to devote to things like "big headwinds" etc.

That's the whole point of this little exercise. Freeing up brain cycles and reducing unnecessary apprehension caused by simply not having any mental clues about very fundamental things related to flying. That's all this is about.

This is not about becoming a United States Air Force, Test Pilot School Graduate, overnight using FSX on a SmartPhone. For the 20th time already.

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.

Please don't! Thank you. You are not helping because you did not even take the time to understand the underlying premise behind this thread. You made assumptions about what's being done without taking the time to actually understand what's really being done.

While you sit on the sidelines NOT participating in this thread anymore, you might want to read this thread: http://mustang.flight1.net/forums/incorrect-performance-numbers_topic2679.html.

That was a great example of one of the points I've been trying to make. The developer of the F1 Mustang realizes that their aircraft model is not perfect. They stipulate that it is not a Procedural Trainer.

The thread was started by a real world Cessna Mustang Pilot. He listed some very specific details about the flight performance of the Mustang he flies. He noted that the aircraft model produced slightly different performance values at altitude and he noted that he was able to correct the differential by making adjustments to the underlying flight simulator itself.

The key take-away from the thread is that retail level desktop flight simulation software is definitely not for Primary Flight Training, nor was it ever designed to be used for such purposes. I get that salient point.

This thread is not about using such devices as Primary Flight Training tools, but to use it as an initial gateway for fundamental Orientation in areas that give me an idea (a clue) about What is supposed to happen, When it is supposed to happen, Why it is going to happen, Who is involved in making it happen, Where it it most likely to happen and Where it will happen within the basic phases of flight (take-off, climb, cruise, descent and approach and landing).

The fact that none of the naysayers even bother to address the huge benefits to getting an early head start on the ATC Communications using a Live ATC Model, is very telling indeed. That exposure alone would have helped me tremendously 20 years ago, had I been able to practice that stuff back then at home.

Have you even bothered to look at the Live ATC model being referred to - or did you just toss the entire baby out with the bath water?

When you combine all of these elements together (good aircraft systems fidelity, good weather engine, good live ATC model, etc.), you won't get a certified Procedural Training designation from the FAA, but you will get something that can be used to begin the process of introducing the student to subjects and concepts that they will need to flush out during actual training - before that actual training begins (as long as it is guided by a competent pilot).

It is the totality of these components working together that makes it good for this singular purpose. Stop choking yourself on the fact that one piece of it comes from "Microsoft."

Flight1, worked very closely with Cessna Aircraft Company to produce their Mustang model. How many third-party authors of books that you currently rely upon in your real world flying today, have had such close working relationships with the aircraft manufacturer of the airplane(s) you operate?

Is working with the OEM to get as much fidelity as possible into the system the "wrong" thing to do? Should Flight1 and Cessna Aircraft Company simply admit to "you" that they were "wrong?"

Please, if you are going to contribute - help us all out by being relevant and on topic. That means - try to at least get the functional premise correct before replying.

Thank you very much.

 

[Positive Rate]

I am no gift to aviation. I am a teacher, a pilot,...

Really? You then go on to say the following:

...You insist on justifying your position on virtually every topic under this thread, regarding substituting FS for actual flight training,...

Reading & Comprehension Skills go hand in hand - do they not? I know several Teachers personally and a handful of University Professors, and have the utmost respect for them and their selected profession. However, don't you think it wise to practice what you teach?

There is no doubt that you instruct your students to always pay attention to the premise, less they end up responding with nonsequitur. Likewise, there is little doubt you teach your students that nonsequitur reply, is only for those who are either afraid of the answer they must give, or completely unaware of the subject matter for which they offer a reply.

To wit - you just said that my intentions were to substitute FSX for "actual flight training."

This one statement alone tells me that you have not even bothered to get a grasp of the underlying premise in this thread. It also tells me that you haven't even tried to understand the very title of this thread: Using Flight Simulation for Procedures & Skills Orientation.

Where does the OP include the words: Using Flight Simulation as a Substitute for Actual Flight Training. (?)

Everyone one of you naysayers have responded with this perpetual nonsequitur, when the underlying premise has not one iota to do with your written response. Every step has been taken thus far, to make absolutely sure that no one is confused about the topic of this thread and/or its intention. Yet, some of you continually try to inject a premise that does not exist in this thread.

I would simply ask that you stop doing that. You are misstating the underlying purpose and intent of this thread each time you do it.

Honestly, based on what you have written here, you should not be a pilot in command of an aircraft.

Really?

You can't even read the title of something you take the time to respond to, such that you at least have a firm grasp of the underlying purpose, theme and intent of the thread, and yet you derive a conclusion that somehow I should not be pilot in command of an aircraft? Are you serious?

Based on what you have written in your reply, I would say that more reading and a lot more comprehension is in order for you, because you have not yet understood the premise of this thread, clearly.

Unreal.

 

[Positive Rate]

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!

The level of assumption and misguided direction is palpable to say the least in this thread.

Just stop and think for a minute - instead of offering more knee jerk reactionary reply. Re-read what you just offered. But, before you do - go read what I have already stipulated inside this thread about the training program.

None of what you just said squares with the content of this thread!

It has already been stated (more than once) that the training program is going to be two (2) years long. That it would culminate in the accumulation of between 1,200 to 1,500 flight hours. That more than 60% of those flight hours as PIC would be in multi-engine turbine aircraft.

It has been stipulated (several times) in this thread, that mine is not an attempt to "shorten training," but to enhance the overall training experience to result in a more safe, more competent, more proficient and more efficient Aviator.

This has been stipulated numerous times inside this thread, yet completely ignored by your last post.

Where's the attention to detail?

 

[Positive Rate]

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 - ...

That's just misguided and dumb.

If you think that an intelligent reading of what's been posted demonstrates such folly, then that's the world you will have to live in - not me.

I have no cure for dumb. I'm sorry about that.

 

[livitup]

Others have tried more eloquently than I to state this, but I somehow can't help myself.

Assume that there are 10 procedures involved with takeoff. The model of flight training is set up so that the instructor demonstrates the first one, and then lets you attempt/practice it, while the instructor performs the other 9 procedures. Once you have mastered the first procedure, then you get to add one more, and practice those two, while the instructor does 8 of them. And so on, until you're doing all 10 and the instructor can nap in the right seat.

Your question: why can't I learn the "non-kinesthetic " procedures using MSFS||a book||a DVD||etc. is a reasonable question. But the answer is that the primary procedures, that you must learn first, are the kinesthetic ones.

Can you use MSFS and VATSIM to learn how to talk to ATC? Sure. But it doesn't buy you much because 1) you have to fly the damn plane before you can worry about talking to ATC and 2) you're not going to save any time or money by learning that up front because you're still going to have to practice it with a CFI.

I think the scenario you have in your mind is that you will get to the end of the runway on your first lesson, and the instructor will say "contact ATC, then advance the throttle, then release the brakes, then steer with the rudder pedals to maintain the centerline, then observe the ASI, then rotate the nose, then pitch for climb, then change the radio frequency, then..."

If this were the case, then advance training on how to talk to ATC, how to operate the throttle, and other "procedural" things would be useful. But this will NOT happen. You will master ONE of these, while the instructor does the rest. You can practice talking to ATC all you want prior to your first lesson, but you're not going to be able to use those skills until after you have mastered 9 other skills first.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I'm a little late on weighing in on this.

I took a lag between my first initial PPL training (young, ran out of money) of several years and picked it up later when I could afford it. In the interim, I've played around with flight simulators, once they came out, then reengaged my PPL training.

1. Can it give you some heads up procedural knowledge for IFR operations and radio communications? Yeah, somewhat, but the hours you spend trying to nail these things down will probably be 1-2 hours in IFR training. It's sort of trying to learn a foreign language from listening to a tape (hint: it really doesn't work. I've tried it.) There is no dialogue, feedback, and correction. There is a reason why, when we use an approved simulator to do IFR currency approaches, there is a CFII present conducting the operations and signing off. Even then, with a CFII beating down on you, it's a lot different being in the air doing them, with or without a CFII beating down on you. In some ways harder, in some ways easier, but procedures get omitted and simplified in the simulator sessions.

2. Anything wrong with playing around with a simulator prior to learning to fly in a real plane? Not in my opinion, knock yourself out. But don't think it is going to shorten the learning curve once you get in to PPL and IR training either. As to whether or not you will spend time un-learning bad habits, I don't know. I think it depends a lot on your attitude and expectation from a simulator. I really didn't have a problem, but then again I didn't try to use it as a tool to learn procedures. The few tidbits of IFR/comm procedural information I did pick up was probably worth about five minutes of real training.

 

[livitup]

This one statement alone tells me that you have not even bothered to get a grasp of the underlying premise in this thread. It also tells me that you haven't even tried to understand the very title of this thread: Using Flight Simulation for Procedures & Skills Orientation.

The issue with your approach that we are trying to get you to understand is that what you call "Procedures & Skills Orientation" is, in fact, a large component of Primary Flight Training.

A training model has been developed and successfully used for decades which includes the instructor demonstrating, assisting, and then observing all the "procedures & skills" you want to learn on your own in a simulator. Learning them alone in a simulator has many drawbacks, two of which are that there is generally no negative feedback (no penalty for incorrect actions) and that there is no demonstration or assistance phase.

If self-guided simulation were the answer, I'm sure many CFIs would embrace the change to the model. But it's not, so they haven't.

 

[MAKG1]

The quote was typed directly from page 63. Had you read the book, you would know what it says.

Furthermore, I spoke with the author of the book by phone some 20 years ago from my home one evening after work. I know what the author wrote on page 63 and I know what he meant when he wrote it.

Clearly, you did not. The quote says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it did. That is the sense of the misquote.

It said that procedures are minimal, just like everyone else here is saying.

Get in an airplane and stop talking out of your posterior. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It's not that we're misunderstanding you. It's that you're starting with a fallacious assumption and every conclusion you draw from that is wrong.

You asked for opinions and you got them. If you're just going to reject ones that don't fit your worldview, you're wasting bandwidth. GO FLY or shut up.

 

[LifeInverted]

The level of assumption and misguided direction is palpable to say the least in this thread.

Just stop and think for a minute - instead of offering more knee jerk reactionary reply. Re-read what you just offered. But, before you do - go read what I have already stipulated inside this thread about the training program.

None of what you just said squares with the content of this thread!

It has already been stated (more than once) that the training program is going to be two (2) years long. That it would culminate in the accumulation of between 1,200 to 1,500 flight hours. That more than 60% of those flight hours as PIC would be in multi-engine turbine aircraft.

It has been stipulated (several times) in this thread, that mine is not an attempt to "shorten training," but to enhance the overall training experience to result in a more safe, more competent, more proficient and more efficient Aviator.

This has been stipulated numerous times inside this thread, yet completely ignored by your last post.

Where's the attention to detail?

 

[JHW]

What you are talking about is SOP. Many of us here have gone to a flightsafety or equivalent and gotten type ratings without ever setting foot in the actual airplane. Did you think you invented this concept ?

 

[Sac Arrow]

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 - ...

That's just misguided and dumb.

If you think that an intelligent reading of what's been posted demonstrates such folly, then that's the world you will have to live in - not me.

I have no cure for dumb. I'm sorry about that.

I don't intend this as an insult, but you do come across that way...

 

[Positive Rate]

VR, I wish you good luck in your studies!

Thank you.

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?

Yes - in sequence, of course and with a lot of tweaks to enhance learning.

The idea will be to essentially run the first four (4) flight training phases similar to a Part 141 operation with some significant modifications designed by the flight instructors involved. For example, there will be a some additional "integration" quasi-instrument instruction embedded in the Private Pilot phase of training. Slightly more than what a student would normally get at that level.

Another example for increasing learning can be found in the type of aircraft that will be used in the training suite. The training will start with the Cessna 172 and will fluctuate between both low and high performance SEL aircraft, but only at certain stages in the training when making such a shift is appropriate according to the instructors. The overall goal will be to increase weight, complexity and speed of the aircraft being used over time and within the training environment.

Yet another example will be found in the type of flying being done during the training phases. The plan is to break out of the "local pattern" earlier than the average student might, and begin the process of a more "scheduled carrier" type of "regiment." All of this is in "quotes" because we won't be trying to replicate airline specific training to the Nth degree, but we will be using "some" of the same aspects of that kind of "regular" flying.

My target goal is a VLJ as single pilot with RVSM certification, for both business and personal use across the Atlantic at times and a significant amount of coast-to-coast flight plans. So, the training program will ease into a more "professional type" of "attitude" about flying in general. The bulk of my private GA flying in the future will not be casual outings. Most of the flying will be about 80% business and 20% personal (casual).

Another area of differentiation will be the additional time spent and special training emphasis placed on cross-country flight planning, weight & balance calculations, high density altitude performance, understanding cross country en route weather to a much deeper level, etc.

Another aspect that will be different is the actual training location. Because, I'll have to operate single pilot in a variety of national weather and international weather conditions, the training will be in various locations that offer as much exposure to the kinds of weather that I'll experience in private operations as possible (extreme heat, snow & ice, high humidity, heavy winds, etc.)

A lot of time and attention has gone into creating the training program.

The last two (2) phases will be time building components in turbo-prop and turbofan, just before taking delivery of the VLJ. About 50% of those flights will be single pilot and the other 50% will be with a Safety Pilot in the right seat with me, as I explore my personal limits as a pilot. For example, I will need to know what level of physical fatigue causes me to approach the point where I am unsafe operating a high performance turbine aircraft.

There will be lots of night flying in inclement weather - again, intentionally under physical fatigue with a Safety Pilot in the right seat. The purpose of this phase will be to fully understand what my physical limitations are prior to operating a VLJ in business on my own, where schedules an deadlines need to be maintained.

After that, I'll be ready for OEM transition training into the VLJ and RVSM certification in that particular aircraft. I'll do some additional (more extensive) Upset Recovery Training in the VLJ itself to round out the full training process. In between the physical flight training there will be other educational segments having to do with both the GA and Business Aviation industries/communities.

At some point, I'll begin work on aerobatics, obtain a Glider Rating and a Rotor Rating, as I have always like some of the Eurocopters - especially the EC135 series. The more I see the 135, the more I tend to like it.

Hope you got a pile of money to spend for all those certificates.

I do ok.

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!

I've actually though about CFI out of the old saying: "You don't really know subject until you've taught that subject." I've found that old saying to be true in other areas of my professional life.

However, the two (2) year time frame, given all the student training and PIC time building components baked into the program, I don't see how I could plug in the CFI part unless I did that exclusively in the King Air as part of the time building sequences. I have not looked into the requirements for giving instruction in a King Air, so I have no idea what that will entail. There is also the matter of aircraft leasing and insurance mixed with instruction - I don't know how any of that works (or does not work) as I have not planned for it - so I have not studied it.

I just like the idea of teaching someone else the fundamentals, as I know that sharpens your own knowledge and gives you a better understanding of the subject matter. Whether I will be able to work that in or not - who knows.

Hey, thanks for the post. Great encouragement and very much on topic. I wish you the best in your personal flying career - wherever that may lead you.

 

[Positive Rate]

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.

RedBird, certainly believes in it. So much so, that it spawned Continental Motors to spin off Zulu Flight Training:

G1000 flight simulation offered through Zulu Flight Training as an integral part of their training program. http://www.zuluflighttraining.com/

 

[Positive Rate]

What is that whole MSFS package going to do for you before the rating? It makes no sense.

Practicing Procedures, is but one thing you can learn before the rating.

Honestly, I really don't understand all the force feedback. This technology is here to stay and it is only going to get better.

In fact, the RedBird aircraft models don't even simulate the Visual Cockpit environment. So, you brain will have to make even more of a visual adjustment when you jump into and out of the real aircraft. At least with some of the well coded FSX and X-Plane models, your brain gets some of the visual "orientation" of the actual cockpit layout.

LOL! For the purpose of doing what RedBird does, how is that worse.

 

[Positive Rate]

I like the Troopers and the Horse idea, but they both need a bit more visual detail and fidelity:

 

[dell30rb]

The level of assumption and misguided direction is palpable to say the least in this thread.

Just stop and think for a minute - instead of offering more knee jerk reactionary reply. Re-read what you just offered. But, before you do - go read what I have already stipulated inside this thread about the training program.

None of what you just said squares with the content of this thread!

It has already been stated (more than once) that the training program is going to be two (2) years long. That it would culminate in the accumulation of between 1,200 to 1,500 flight hours. That more than 60% of those flight hours as PIC would be in multi-engine turbine aircraft.

It has been stipulated (several times) in this thread, that mine is not an attempt to "shorten training," but to enhance the overall training experience to result in a more safe, more competent, more proficient and more efficient Aviator.

This has been stipulated numerous times inside this thread, yet completely ignored by your last post.

Where's the attention to detail?

Man, you are something else.

Most of us here are pilots because we went out, plunked down the money and read some books and got the instruction and FLEW PLANES

EDIT: Oh god now you've gone n done it, you just posted a flight sim youtube video 20 minutes long of flying a skycatcher.

 

[MAKG1]

EDIT: Oh god now you've gone n done it, you just posted a flight sim youtube video 20 minutes long of flying a skycatcher.

And approaching left of center, in the "no transgression zone."

I guess the sim doesn't help with procedures much after all, does it?

That POV is so far back, that you're going to have some issues with stall recovery....

 

[Positive Rate]

Assume that there are 10 procedures involved with takeoff. The model of flight training is set up so that the instructor demonstrates the first one, and then lets you attempt/practice it, while the instructor performs the other 9 procedures. Once you have mastered the first procedure, then you get to add one more, and practice those two, while the instructor does 8 of them. And so on, until you're doing all 10 and the instructor can nap in the right seat.

Where does the student first learn about these 10 procedures? In other words, with all of the sight and sounds that are involved in actual flight training, where does the student get to practice these procedures on their own without killing himself -or- his instructor, with the ability to check back with their instructor for correction when and where necessary?

The answer to that question is, nowhere - unless that same student has access to a simulated environment -or- unless the student goes broke on such practice that goes above and beyond the iterative nature of the "instructor does number 1, now you do number 1 until you get it right" type of mode.

Your example demonstrates the problem that I am trying to solve. The live Training Session where the instructor demonstrated Number 1 and then had the student demonstrate proficiency at Number 1, will always be coupled to a huge gap in time between itself and the next live Training Session. This is where efficiency in the learning process can be greatly boosted/augmented.

Currently, that "gap" is officially filled with reading of text books. If that gap were filled with reading text books and a high fidelity flight simulation experience that required by definition the same procedures used in the previous flight lesson, then wouldn't the efficiency of the entire flight training experience take a significant step forward? Yes, or no - please explain why.

Your question: why can't I learn the "non-kinesthetic " procedures using MSFS||a book||a DVD||etc. is a reasonable question. But the answer is that the primary procedures, that you must learn first, are the kinesthetic ones.

How do you define both "Primary Procedure" and "Kinesthetic?" Here's how one dictionary defines kinesthetic:

kin

es·thet

ic (-th

t

k) adj.
kin·es·the·sia (k

n

s-th

zh

, k

n

s-)n. The sense that detects bodily position, weight, or movement of the muscles, tendons, and joints.


- Feeling the force of gravity in turn.
- Feeling lateral forces in an uncoordinated turn.
- Feeling the stick force required to trim off nose down/up tendency.

And a number of other things the student pilot "feels" as it relates to flying an aircraft. How does that related to the Process and/or Procedure of knowing when/how/where to talk to ATC, or what to say to them when they make contact with you? How does that related to how/when/why to use the GNS530W coupled to another GNS430W during any phase of flight, but especially during un-planned course corrections and/or un-planned course changes?

How does that relate kinesthetic to rehearsing and/or practicing both the normal and abnormal procedures of the aircraft systems on-board? How does it related to any of the mental work required in designing a flight plan and then simulate going through the process of flying through all the waypoints that make up that flight plan - as you practice diverting to various alternate airports for reasons that can also be simulated, such that you have make mental decisions about what to do with the aircraft and its avionics along the way?

Can you use MSFS and VATSIM to learn how to talk to ATC? Sure. But it doesn't buy you much because 1) you have to fly the damn plane before you can worry about talking to ATC and 2) you're not going to save any time or money by learning that up front because you're still going to have to practice it with a CFI.

That's some of the most backwards logic I've ever read, honestly. Logically, this is circular reasoning.

1) If flying the "damn plane" was a prerequisite to learning how to talk with ATC, no "damn student" would EVER get up to speed! Listen to yourself, please. Listen to the logical framework that you used. If the entire process is made more difficult because of conversations with ATC, then why not make a reasonable move to blunt at least one (1) of those hindrances straight out of the box -before- the actual flight training begins!

It blows my mind entirely, that you don't see this!!!

If it is MORE difficult to learn how to fly the "damn plane" when talking to ATC, then by logical extension it must be LESS difficult to learn how to fly that same "damn plane" when you already know something about How to talk with ATC.

I mean, seriously - did you think about this before you typed it? Should the student wait until they have to learn BOTH things at the same "damn" time? Is that better? Is that efficiency in learning?

Come on, man. I came here for some help, not this persistent illogical gibberish. If learning to do TWO "damn" things at once is MORE "damn" difficult, than learning to do ONE "damn" thing while having the OTHER "damn" thing somewhat understood, MUST by logical extension be somewhat less taxing.

Unreal. That's just basic (fundamental) common sense. You don't have to be a pilot to understand that principle.

I think the scenario you have in your mind is that you will get to the end of the runway on your first lesson, and the instructor will say "contact ATC, then advance the throttle, then release the brakes, then steer with the rudder pedals to maintain the centerline, then observe the ASI, then rotate the nose, then pitch for climb, then change the radio frequency, then..."

No. That is not what I had in mind. I'm not talking about these kinds of "fundamentals."

You will master ONE of these, while the instructor does the rest.

Do you mean I will be intentionally dumbed down while the instructor builds time on my rear end? I hope that's not what you meant.

Look, I'm not saying that Procedural Learning is bad. There is no argument from me any "damn" thing at all, as a matter of fact. I've never put up an argument here. Mine is not to argue with Tradition, but to Augment it. That's all I want to do. I want to Augment and Optimize my training. Is that so hard to understand?

Come on now - issue me some credit for not being a total idiot. I mean, to think that I would have come this far in the design of a flight training program without understanding the common sense procedural (step-by-step) approach to learning and how the building of one concept or idea upon another at a later time in the training sequence is somehow going to change, merely because I decided to learn how to fly - is humorous to say the least.

I'm not trying to change the "damn" system. I'm not trying to break the "damn" system. I'm not attempting to alter the "damn" system beyond recognition. I'm simply trying to initialize my brain to begin the Orientation process to things that will be required during actual flight training, before that whole process begins - and then, to continue using that same technology to fill the gaps between the "damn" lessons when my flight instructor is at home eating his "damn" dinner and/or reading a "damn" bedtime story to his children.

What is so "damn" hard about understanding this?

LOL! I'm only having some fun with the "damn" commentary. I read your post very carefully and I really do appreciate your "damn" input!

[I do have a sense of humor]

 

[dell30rb]

Why don't you just go to your local flight school and take a "damn" flying lesson.



With the 1k you spend on a nice desktop, yoke, throttle, rudder pedals you could already be soloing. Do you have a driver's license or are you still training for that one in a simulator?

 

[MAKG1]

Still not understanding that the "procedures" are physical actions, apparently.

You think you've come "this far" in design of a flight training program?

You're delusional. You haven't passed the first step.

Here's how I learned the procedures recently for a new-to-me complex aircraft. I wrote a checklist based on the POH and workflows for engine start, taxi, run-up, takeoff, before-landing, landing, cleanup, and securing. Took about 1.5 hours, on my own. I spent 15 minutes ground training with an instructor, and then 30 minutes in the airplane testing them. My checkout took 2.5 hours, so procedures accounted for about 20%. There is NO WAY I could have secured that checkout without the instructor witnessing my process, so the sim wouldn't have helped in the slightest.

What did I spend those other two hours on? About an hour airwork, getting the feel for stalls and stall recovery, and all the kinesthetic stuff we have to know (what level flight looks like at cruise, for instance). And the other hour working out what the performance numbers really are on this 37 year old airplane. It had some surprises. With the gear out and flaps up (not normal, but it is approved), the takeoff roll is almost 2000 feet, signficantly longer than the POH says. You have to really believe that on a 2400 foot runway. I ruined a tire on a 2700 foot runway when I tried this for the first time, because I didn't believe it was going to make it off the ground and aborted the takeoff at Vr. Your sim is utterly useless for any of this.

The difference between a complex aircraft and a non-complex aircraft is almost all procedure. You have gear and a variable pitch propeller to deal with. How much of this 2.5 hour checkout would your sim have helped? ZERO. You're wasting your time. If you want to play games, knock yourself out, but stop claiming you're going to save anyone any time at all. For primary training, the savings will be negative because of the bad habits -- and your video shows two of them on the title frame, one of which is a serious safety problem.

 

[Positive Rate]

I don't know... in my opinion if you learn what to do at first and when to do it than you can learn the why later.

I agree on some levels. Some military type training is carried out this way as just one example. There are other examples that make sense.

Making your patterns far to large if no one is telling you when to start turns.

You make a really good point. I found myself doing this. Better yet - I caught myself doing this. Once I caught this, I began correcting it but it required the right rigging on the computer.

I read about it in an FAA publication and then forgot about when I began flying the simulator. I was experimenting with other things and not paying attention to the pattern. A bad habit forming? Sure. I also was not using a live ATC model, so there were no live instructions related to the approach phase.

After I picked up on this "bad habit" and began using a Head Tracker, so I could look outside the windows without using my hands, I began tightening up both the pattern shape and pattern altitude.

But, that's not the point. The real point is that my brain became aware of the problem. That is why I think this stuff can help me. You become aware of things mentally you might not catch during the heat of actual flying.

Based on what I've read from some other actual flight students, flying patterns that are not perfect or to large, is something they sometimes do in their actual training until their instructor calls the problem to their attention. All for the same reasons - they were focused on other things and simply forgot!

So, whether simulated or real, it can and does seem to happen in both environments. The question seems to be - when does the student gain consciousness of the problem and how do they go about correcting it. In both examples (real and simulated) having a knowledgeable pilot (CFI or otherwise) in the mix does help.

Another is the yoke or joystick youre going to be using has almost no resistance on it. In comparison a real set of controls take a bit more muscle to move the way you want.

The sim will never match this perfectly. However, you can optimize both the force feedback and the initial (non-linear) resistance in FSX and X-Plane with the right hardware - including yokes, pedals and TPM.

But, again - this is all kinesthetic and fairly outside of my goals for this level of flight sim technology (though it does add more "realism").

Thanks for the input!

 

[w_privett]

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.

Some other things that aren't very probable. That a genX kid at age 19 with 200 hours flight time (all civilian multi engine) will be handed the keys to a king air on a nightly flight to the bush. That the kid at 20 will go to georgia (the real one, not the US state) to get type rated in antonov and tupelov models. That he will have solo time in restored antiques, T-6, F-86, Mig-15 by age 21. At 22 he will fly left seat in 4-engine turpoprops the length of the african continent north-south and to Europe.

I had no qualms whatsoever about entrusting those aeroplanes to JHW because he had a cautious and receptive attitude. Perhaps someone who learned so much so quickly at such a young age, might be qualified to comment on ideas such as yours.

I saw this time and time again with young pilots. When I interviewed I would ask "what are your expectations about working here?" I only looked for some variety of 2 answers to show me that an applicant would be successful in the cockpit:
1. I want to work as part of a team.
2. I don't know enough but I want to learn.

More than one or two responses of "I will..." or "I know..." was and is a red flag. I can teach anyone to fly an aeroplane. I can teach anyone navigation and meteorology. I cannot teach a safe attitude.

 

[Positive Rate]

...There is no dialogue, feedback, and correction. There is a reason why, when we use an approved simulator to do IFR currency approaches, there is a CFII present conducting the operations and signing off.

Well, that's easily dealt with by the sim pilot recording their flight, posting it on the web and then asking a forum for feedback and correction. They can then engage in dialogue about what was done right -vs- what was done wrong and then take that back into the sim with them the next time - which could be as soon as the next minute - as opposed to waiting for the next day, or the next two days for the next flight lesson with the instructor - where now the student is playing more catch-up.

With the sim, the recorded flight does not have to take hours. It could be just minutes and even edited to cut straight to the portion of the flight where certain procedures are at question.

So, just like using the simulator is not using the real thing, the input received from a competent pilot does not have to come in real-time as well - just as long as the simulated material gets some follow-up from a competent pilot. Remember, the actual flight training does involve such direct contact between student and instructor. However, just getting some mental orientation under your belt on certain aspects of flying does not require the direct 1-v-1 engagement because it is not intended to replace actual flight instruction.

The other point is this. I've heard people that have had their pilots license for a period and who trained under the same instructor all of the time, tell me that they wished they had used more than one flight instructor, so that they could have some diversity in their original training.

So, if one can fly the sim, drop a video or just ask a question and then get multiple answers from multiple qualified pilots then that person gets to cycle through and further filter out the extraneous, until they get to the heart of what's being said by every qualified pilot in the room. Emphasis on the word qualified, of course.

Even then, with a CFII beating down on you, it's a lot different being in the air doing them, with or without a CFII beating down on you. In some ways harder, in some ways easier, but procedures get omitted and simplified in the simulator sessions.

This is not intended to replace actual flight instruction.

2. Anything wrong with playing around with a simulator prior to learning to fly in a real plane? Not in my opinion, knock yourself out. But don't think it is going to shorten the learning curve once you get in to PPL and IR training either.

This is intended to enhance actual flight training.

As to whether or not you will spend time un-learning bad habits, I don't know. I think it depends a lot on your attitude and expectation from a simulator.

Attitude, focus, sincerity on learning things the right way, etc. I think all those things will matter.

I really didn't have a problem, but then again I didn't try to use it as a tool to learn procedures.

That's the key differential. The aircraft models I'll be using are for the most part modeled replicas of the actual aircraft that will be used in the real environment - right down to the instruments, avionics and aircraft systems.

Notice what I have not talked about yet: Flight Dynamics. That's because the physical components of flight dynamics are all about the kinesthetics of flying. When you visit the sim forums that's all they love to talk about, Flight Dynamics and how "real" it seems. Not me.

I did a little research and found out that the ONLY part of flight dynamics that I should be concerned with as it relates to using a flight simulator for orientation to procedures, is the stuff that pertains to aircraft performance relative to speed at altitude, climbing and descents.

Why? Because, what I really care about relative to "flight dynamics" is the aircraft performance relative to Winds Aloft, Fuel Planning and Weight & Balance, so that I can develop a decent understanding about Flight Planning and Time En Route expectations. This all gets back to me learning (now) the good habits of a pilot who operates his aircraft in an efficient manner and what mental frameworks go along with that kind of thinking.

I'm only doing this to become a better thinker in the cockpit - not to become a better stick and rudder jock (though there is nothing wrong with having good stick skills - its just heavily weighted on the side of kinesthetics).

The few tidbits of IFR/comm procedural information I did pick up was probably worth about five minutes of real training.

How immersive was your sim experience?

Seems pretty immersive to me and it seems like there is a lot to learn here for the one without a pilots license, no?

 

[Seanaldinho]

I agree on some levels. Some military type training is carried out this way as just one example. There are other examples that make sense.

Hell it worked for me. I took a discovery flight and flew probably 30 out of 45 minutes. When I started real lessons I picked up quickly because doing procedures perfectly isnt what matters when you start. What matters is flying, the rest will fall into place.


You make a really good point. I found myself doing this. Better yet - I caught myself doing this. Once I caught this, I began correcting it but it required the right rigging on the computer.

I read about it in an FAA publication and then forgot about when I began flying the simulator. I was experimenting with other things and not paying attention to the pattern. A bad habit forming? Sure. I also was not using a live ATC model, so there were no live instructions related to the approach phase.

After I picked up on this "bad habit" and began using a Head Tracker, so I could look outside the windows without using my hands, I began tightening up both the pattern shape and pattern altitude.

But, that's not the point. The real point is that my brain became aware of the problem. That is why I think this stuff can help me. You become aware of things mentally you might not catch during the heat of actual flying.

I think thats when you should notice your mistakes the most again my opinion though.

Based on what I've read from some other actual flight students, flying patterns that are not perfect or to large, is something they sometimes do in their actual training until their instructor calls the problem to their attention. All for the same reasons - they were focused on other things and simply forgot!

Because flying the airplane is what matters at first. Your pattern does not need to be perfect. All of the small things will be ironed out before you solo and certaintly before your checkride.

So, whether simulated or real, it can and does seem to happen in both environments. The question seems to be - when does the student gain consciousness of the problem and how do they go about correcting it. In both examples (real and simulated) having a knowledgeable pilot (CFI or otherwise) in the mix does help.

Well if youre not aware of the problem youre making than only a CFI can point it out. For instance I had a tendancy to speaking quickly and softly when on the radio. Now I didnt notice this because I was just focused on getting the right words on in the right order but my CFI noticed it and corrected me. Now I speak with a deep and dreamy pilot voice.


The sim will never match this perfectly. However, you can optimize both the force feedback and the initial (non-linear) resistance in FSX and X-Plane with the right hardware - including yokes, pedals and TPM.

But, again - this is all kinesthetic and fairly outside of my goals for this level of flight sim technology (though it does add more "realism").

Thanks for the input!

Now I think what youre trying to do is a good idea but in reality it wont translate as well as you think it will. Good luck!

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Get in an airplane and stop talking out of your posterior. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It's not that we're misunderstanding you. It's that you're starting with a fallacious assumption and every conclusion you draw from that is wrong.

You asked for opinions and you got them. If you're just going to reject ones that don't fit your worldview, you're wasting bandwidth. GO FLY or shut up.

RedBird, certainly believes in it. So much so, that it spawned Continental Motors to spin off Zulu Flight Training:

G1000 flight simulation offered through Zulu Flight Training as an INTEGRALpart of their training program. http://www.zuluflighttraining.com/

Integrel (adj) formed as a unit with another part

That Redbird video you posted isn't talking about using it for pre-primary training. If you had actually watched and comprehended it, you would know that Redbird's philosophy is quite the opposite. It's for familirization training AFTER you already have done primary training and know what the hell you're doing.

 

[Positive Rate]

The issue with your approach that we are trying to get you to understand is that what you call "Procedures & Skills Orientation" is, in fact, a large component of Primary Flight Training.

I get the connectedness idea. It is a larger component of flight training. I get that part.

I'm simply saying that what's done procedurally in the real can be simulated before hand and that with the right kind of guidance, it should help to facilitate a more enhanced and well seated learning experience in the aggregate.

A training model has been developed and successfully used for decades which includes the instructor demonstrating, assisting, and then observing all the "procedures & skills" you want to learn on your own in a simulator.

This is not the underlying premise of the thread. The "on your own" part is incorrect. I've gone into tremendous detail explaining why this is not true. The thread has nothing to do with "going it alone."

If I were planning to go it alone, I would not be here. That's why I came here. Of course, the real purpose behind why I came here has been drowned out by the equally tremendous and intentional misunderstanding of the underlying premise.

All one need do is read what was posted. I'm not talking about replacing traditional decades old flight training. I'm merely talking about doing something that will enhance that decades old tradition.

Go look at your industry's statistics on GA Pilot Training to Completion. Aside from the cost of obtaining an education as a Private Pilot a being a real factor in the failure of many to complete, the current training regime as it stands was concluded to be the primary culprit in the failure of too many students to complete (though there were many different reasons given). The industry is trying to find ways to change this fact.

One of the biggest factors cited was the gap between lessons and the lack of connectedness the student had between what they were taught prior to -vs- what they were taught subsequently. Those gaps between lessons can and should be filled with something the student can take to the bank and cash.

When I read the became aware of the FAA's conclusions, I began looking for ways to adequately fill that gap with something of value that I could take into the next meeting with my flight instructors. I then stumbled upon the Flight Sim world online. When I saw the level of visual acuity within the simulator, I began to research the actual level of fidelity within the system to see if it could be used as an Orientation Device. I did that homework already.

If you put together the right rig with the right component, you can reach a level of functional fidelity that is high enough to warrant using this technology as an Orientation Device. Not a Flight Training Device. Please try to understand the differential between the two ideas.

Watch the video I just posted (the last one). It is but one small example of the kind of immersive experience you can obtain by plugging in the right components to your flight simulation platform. That's an example of the Orientation that I'm referring to. In that video there are many things that can be learned - I'm not talking about learning every specific detail.

I'm talking about starting with a broader Orientation of a video like that and then drilling down further into the details of those kinds of flight with qualified pilots who know what they are doing. That's one example. There are many other examples. That video was a VFR flight, but instruments that are used in IFR, were used as there well.

The communication with ATC was live. All the additional traffic in the air, both on the ground and en route was live. That simulation required the virtual pilot to make decisions using their brain. I'm simply talking about obtaining some exposure to those decisions and using my brain in the same fashion, starting with the basics.

By using the Pilots Operating Handbook of the actual aircraft in question, I can know what the performance numbers should be. I can know what the airspeeds should be. I can know what the aircraft pre-flight should be and I can know what all the recommended check lists look like.

Example: I've never started a King Air before in the real. I now know how to properly and accurately start a King Air B200, or C90B - right down to the Nth degree. It is the same with the Cessna 172/182/210, Beechcraft Duke B60 and the Cessna Citation Mustang I. Right to the Nth degree.

Ok, so now what.

Well, how about the fact that you learn rather quickly that the King Air loves to roll fast on the ground during taxi and ground ops even with the Conditions Levers set to Low-Idle. So, you have to use the Prop Levers to take less of a bite during the taxi phase of either the King Air C90B, or the B200 - many end up feathering the Props for the purpose of slowing her down a bit on the ground during taxi ops.

So, is merely knowing about this stuff harmful to my prospects of becoming a safe pilot? Or, does knowing "something" (not every thing) about how this aircraft operates only going to server me well once I start driving her in the real? Most importantly, won't at least knowing some of the quirkiness about the King Air, help me when it comes time for my brain to get up to speed on the kinesthetics of operating her?

I'm talking about some orientation to a wide range of subjects starting with the aircraft sitting on the ramp Cold & Dark. What you learn depends on how much you want to study - it is the same exact way in real life.

For example, I have learned that the Cessna T210 does not like to slow down as rapidly as the Cessna 172, or 182. The T210 loves to keep going and going, and going and going. Damn thing goes like a freight train in its lower speed range. It loves 100kts at sea level and low power settings. I just floats and floats and floats.

Ok, rather than say - No! You must wait to fly the real thing before you fully understand why the T210 loves to stay in the air, why not simply take that as a learning opportunity to find out WHY? The absolute most important thing was not trying to slow down the T210 in the simulator, but simply knowing that it has this tendency before getting into the real thing. What does that do? It makes me mentally prepared for it - no surprises. I was surprised in the simulator when it would not slow down like the 172 and the 182, why should I be surprised about that in the real world? That's a learning opportunity.

Learning them alone in a simulator has many drawbacks, two of which are that there is generally no negative feedback (no penalty for incorrect actions) and that there is no demonstration or assistance phase.

Trust me, I sense "some" penalty even though I know it is not real. Why did I feel mentally exhausted on the flight in the clouds from some airport in Canada to Boeing Field in Washington? My brain understood "something" about the failure to make the flight turn out ok. Popping through the clouds and seeing a mountain sitting directly in front of me was a huge mistake and there was a "sense" of "penalty" to that experience that was definitely felt.

The demonstration phase is a real bugger, unless you network flight simulators together and have the ability to have a competent pilot do the demonstration for you. So, that is a real disadvantage in my case. However, it is not the "only" way to obtain a virtual demonstration - remember, this is a virtual flight simulator, not the real thing - nor is it intended to be.

There are several Virtual Flight Training programs out there that do give you the Virtual Demonstration and the real-time Feedback Assistance that you mention. One of them is called FSFlying School Pro

Well, crashing the airplane just because I'm ignorant of its characteristics is a pretty harsh penalty, wouldn't you agree? That's sounds pretty harsh.

If self-guided simulation were the answer, I'm sure many CFIs would embrace the change to the model. But it's not, so they haven't.

Self-guided simulation was never the goal. As stipulated about a dozen times, guided by a competent pilot, the use of flight such flight simulation technology could be of benefit to future student pilot and the current student pilot.

Thanks for the input and here are two (2) examples of some "simulated" Feedback and Assistance that you wanted:

It is not real flight training. It is not supposed to be real flight training. But, it does seem to provide a lot of background information that one would find helpful when the real flight training begins. All I want to do is ask questions of a broader audience of competent pilots who can critique some of my flight segments.

 

[bqmassey]

All I want to do is ask questions of a broader audience of competent pilots who can critique some of my flight segments.

Perhaps an audience of competent pilots doesn't wish to provide instruction-level support to someone sitting in their living room flying on the computer.

There's a mariad of flight sim forums. I'm sure many of them would be more than happy to help.

X-Plane.org has a flight training section.

 

[Positive Rate]

That Redbird video you posted isn't talking about using it for pre-primary training. blah, blah blah.

Stop repeating yourself. You know full well by now that this is not about primary flight training, or anything even remotely close to trying to simulate the kinesthetic experience you can obtain with full motion simulators.

The RedBird video speaks for itself. Instead of trying to make it say what you want it to say, why not simply accept the fact that it says that you can use desktop flight simulators as part of an integral flight training system - which is another way to put the entire video into proper context.

Part means one portion of the whole unit. It does not mean the entirety of the whole unit itself.

The technology is here to stay in GA and it ain't going away. It is only going to become more widely used and the FAA will change the FARs accordingly. They realize that pilot retention is low, training to completion is even lower and the training regimen, methodology, philosophy and practice itself has had a lot to do with the data that they cannot ignore. Everyone from the AOPA to the Insurance Companies recognize this fact.

I'm not new to Aviation and Aerospace, A380. I'm new to being a licensed Pilot.

Just say you will help me with some of my questions and stop giving me a hard time. You know this can be helpful for the properly motivated and highly disciplined individual. I'm not talking about doing this for someone who would bring a lax attitude to the process. I'm willing to do the homework and take the critique - but stop telling me that this is somehow going to be bad for me in the future, because you know it will only benefit someone like me.

I'm not trying to learn everything by next weekend. I've got more than eight (8) months at least, before the real thing commences and I want to be mentally sharp and prepared for the experience. Sure, alone the way over the next eight (8) months I will no doubt head down to the airport and do some flying with somebody, but I will spend a lot more time in front of my computer and some of that time can be wisely spent Honoring The Procedures.

Think about it. I'm going from zero to VLJ single pilot in two (2) years. I need to be Mentally Prepared for that, A380. And, I need to get into the habit right now, of taking personal responsibility for the way my flight training turns out. This is part of developing that mental framework. Preemptively going after the low hanging mental fruit and getting good at it before moving on.

I can handle this part. Just provide the guidance, correction and critique from time to time as you would of anyone who dropped a technical question on the forum.

Think: Orientation to Basic Mental Skills. Not, hard-core kinesthetic flight training in 3-axes through 6-degrees of freedom (that will come in time).

Motivate yourself to get behind this and then you can say that you had a hand in helping to make the safest, most efficient, more proficient and most skilled VLJ pilot the world has ever known.

Ok, the last part was a bit dramatic, but what can I say...

 

[Seanaldinho]

the FAA will change

Ha!

 

[Positive Rate]

Perhaps an audience of competent pilots doesn't wish to provide instruction-level support to someone sitting in their living room flying on the computer.

There's a mariad of flight sim forums. I'm sure many of them would be more than happy to help.

X-Plane.org has a flight training section.

Perhaps. And, if someone came to a Pilots of America sub-forum called "Pilot Training" (of all things) with technical questions about the use of DME in conjunction with a Garmin GNS 530W, I supposed you would tell them that as a competent pilot, you are not interested in giving instruction-level support to someone sitting at their computer asking questions?

How would you know what they were doing?
How would you know they were flying real aircraft?
How would you know they were taking real flight instruction?

Unless you asked and they were candid, you would not know at all - or it would be very difficult for you to know, especially if they had some real flight training in the past. At least I was candid about what I was doing.

Drop out if you wish. That choice is yours. But, when I start the thread containing technical questions about Orientation to Procedures, I'd ask that you take the same stand-offish tact and remain on the sidelines, please.

There is at least one (1) competent pilot (CFI or otherwise) on this forum who has read at least some of what I have posted and who is not on a crusade to be contradictory just for the sake of being contradictory, when there is no logical, reasonable or rational reason for doing so.

Tradition is a good thing. It is good right up until the point where it starts to hinder real progress. Then it becomes a liability worth revisiting, at the very least. That's the kind of mindset I'm looking for here.

Augmentation is not replacement and/or substitution. No one in this thread has made that claim other than those who like to argue just for the sake of argument.

The benefit of what I am trying to do should be clearly obvious to anyone with experience doing it.

 

[Positive Rate]

Now I think what youre trying to do is a good idea but in reality it wont translate as well as you think it will. Good luck!

I see you have a Glider Rating. I wanted to work that in as well, but like the Rotor Rating, there won't be enough time until after the bulk of training is finished. Besides, I'll more than likely want a break from training anyway after all that work.

Well, as far as the translation goes, we shall see. I can report that already, I've become aware of things that I would not have even known bout until the real training started, had it not been for coming upon the flight sim world and that has got to be plus.

However, I just want to make sure that I don't land bad Mental Habits that need to get reversed when the real thing starts. That's one of the reasons why I don't do much flying in the simulator at all right now, believe it or not. That's the level of discipline I'm willing to bring to this.

Over the past week, all I've done is run through all the pre-engine start and engine start-up check lists for each aircraft in the small training fleet. That's keep me mentally engaged. But, I have not started using the instruments or avionics yet during flight, as I want to make sure I'm doing things by the book.

Studying instruments, flight planning, regulations and a mountain of other book related activities, keeps me pretty busy. Occasionally, I'll come across something in a book that is of a "provable" nature. So, I'll take that opportunity to test it out in the sim.

It is always nice to actually see the words of an author come to life in the computer and not just in my head pondering the concept, but actually using the idea in some meaningful way.

My current book is Barry Schiff's Proficient Pilot Volume I. Barry, seems like he was a razor sharp pilot in his day. His depth of knowledge is remarkable and the insight he gives is priceless. It is nice to be able to put some his ideas to the test in the sim. I've fond what he says in his book to be spot on in the simulator. Again, using the simulator to bring a book to life.

We shall see how this works out. I for one am very optimistic about seeing a positive outcome.

Thanks for the encouragement!

 

[Seanaldinho]

I see you have a Glider Rating. I wanted to work that in as well, but like the Rotor Rating, there won't be enough time until after the bulk of training is finished. Besides, I'll more than likely want a break from training anyway after all that work.

A glider rating wouldnt really take very long to add on. There is no written if you have a PPL already and its a very relaxed way of flying.

 

[bqmassey]

Perhaps. And, if someone came to a Pilots of America sub-forum called "Pilot Training" (of all things) with technical questions about the use of DME in conjunction with a Garmin GNS 530W, I supposed you would tell them that as a competent pilot, you are not interested in giving instruction-level support to someone sitting at their computer asking questions?

Whoa now... I never claimed competency. I'm largely a danger to myself and those around me. (I should probably work on that.)

Perhaps. And, if someone came to a Pilots of America sub-forum called "Pilot Training" (of all things) with technical questions about the use of DME in conjunction with a Garmin GNS 530W, I supposed you would tell them that as a competent pilot, you are not interested in giving instruction-level support to someone sitting at their computer asking questions?

How would you know what they were doing?
How would you know they were flying real aircraft?
How would you know they were taking real flight instruction?

You might not know those things, but that's an irrelevant point. You're talking about a hypothetical situation. I'm talking about YOU.

YOU are asking for people's time to help you play flight simulator. Perhaps, knowing that, people are less willing to help. Perhaps people would prefer to only supplement competent instruction, and not be the competent instruction.

I've seen people, flying real machines, get told to hire competent instruction numerous times. If I started asking a bunch of beginner-level questions about mountain flying, I'd probably get told to go take a mountain course. If I'd taken a mountain course and just wanted to get a second explanation on something my instructor taught me, I'd be more likely to get help.

That post was just a commentary on the human interaction element of this.

About your idea to teach yourself flying skills with a flight sim you can buy at Walmart... I do think it's a bad idea, not because of the with a flight sim part, but because of the teach yourself part.

I see nothing wrong with someone doing a lot of sim time before ever touching the controls of a real aircraft, as long as they've got a CFI sitting next to them making sure they learn things correctly from the beginning.

If you're going to be teaching yourself, I'd much rather see you practing with a sim like this. The Law of Primacy would probably be far less likely to affect you negatively when you get into a real aircraft.

 

[JBrown243]

God. This whole thread is TL;DR

 

[Positive Rate]

Man, you are something else.

Most of us here are pilots because we went out, plunked down the money and read some books and got the instruction and FLEW PLANES

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) they call it "Reading & Comprehension Skills." I could be wrong, however. If I am wrong, I will type a correction. However, when I read - I try to comprehend what I've read in context so that when I reply, I don't so out of context. That's all I'm asking of you. Simply read the OP, so that you are clear on the underlying premise in its proper context. That will go a long way (IMO) to resolving the tendency to post something completely out of proper context and without focus.

You have incorrectly concluded in your mind (by evidence of your post) that someone here was actually trying to become a pilot by not plunking down the money, not reading some books and not getting primary instruction in real airplanes.

That is not now, nor has it ever been the case inside this thread.

EDIT: Oh god now you've gone n done it, you just posted a flight sim youtube video 20 minutes long of flying a skycatcher.

If you do not like the "Skycatcher" because it is somehow not manly enough for you, then try the Baron B60 video. Or, I could just as easily post a King Air C90B (very manly) video showing something very similar - a real pilot using the same technology that I plan to use, to keep current on his own skill set when he cannot make it to the airport to fly the real thing.

What blows me away about some of these posts allegedly from "real pilots" on this forum, is not the counter to my idea of using such technology for such purposes, but the real blindness that some of you have with respect to the fact that there are MANY other "real world pilots" out there using some of the exact same stuff that I have installed on my HDD to keep themselves Procedurally Refreshed on their own aircraft.

It is mind blowing that some of you don't seem to understand that fact.

 

[Positive Rate]

Why don't you just go to your local flight school and take a "damn" flying lesson.

Is there a good reason why you have not read and comprehended what you read in this thread? So, much so that you ask questions that have already been answered a multitude of times prior to your inquiry?

You guys are supposed to have good SA skills. Your SA inside this thread is horrible. Think about it.

With the 1k you spend on a nice desktop, yoke, throttle, rudder pedals you could already be soloing. Do you have a driver's license or are you still training for that one in a simulator?

Your desktop might have cost $1k, mine cost about $3.5k.

With respect to the drivers license, I think a visit to my garage would demonstrate whether or not I am possession of the same. The last tine I checked, they don't allow EB 16.4s on the road in my state without one.

Any other not so smart, nonsequitur and completely useless (not to mention extremely off-topic) questions?