Using Flight Simulation for Procedures & Skills Orientation

[Positive Rate]

Using Flight Simulation for Procedures & Skills Orientation
​

As some of you already know, I'll be using flight simulation software during what I'm calling the "Pre-Training" phase, which will be over the next eight (8) months until I start my actual flight training sometime at the end of this year, or very early next year.


What I am not trying to accomplish with this thread:

- Become a pilot overnight
- Learn about the kinethetics of flying real airplanes from a desktop sim
- Develop the physical acuity necessary to know what a real airplane feels like from a sim
- Develop a physical understanding of the flight dynamics of real airplanes from the sim
- Nail down all the aspects of real flying from a desktop windows based sim

What I am trying to accomplish with this thread:

- Orientation to procedural knowledge necessary for VFR & IFR operations
- Develop procedural knowledge relative to departure, approach and en route navigation
- Develop procedural knowledge of avionics & instruments relative to the use of navaids
- Develop good procedural habits and fundamental procedural memory patterns
- Develop ATC radio communication skills while simulating in-flight procedures in Class B airspace
- Develop knowledge of specific aircraft speed & rate related performance factors
- Orientation to flight planning using Pen & Paper, GNS 530/430 WAAS and the G1000

My questions will always be related to Procedures: What, When, Why, Where, How and Who. I will never ask a question about how something should "feel." I won't get the kinesthetic aspect of flying from a desktop simulator, nor is that what I am seeking.


How I will approach the forum:

I will try my best to never ask questions that I cannot first find answers to on my own by reading a book or publication. Or, I might already have an answer, but I might have additional questions that the author did not address, or did not make clear enough for me in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question #1:

Why the navaid split pea soup?

I understand that some navaids were developed before I was born. Heck, some of it even goes back before Abraham Lincoln, was born. In fact, there might even be some navaids out there that pre-date both the Egyptian Pyramids and even the Mayan Ruins. Having said that, why has there been no successful attempt at simply unifying navaids under a singular technological code or method of operations?

In other words, there are VORs for example that have morphed over time into VORTACs, VORs that have eventually become VOR/DME. That seems a bit different than the LNAV to VNAV relationship, or the LPV to PV relationship where there was a true extension of technology leading to a new type of navaid - but even so, RNAV is just another form of LORAN (slightly confusing, no doubt for some).

The VFR chart doesn't even show the presence of LORAN-C. Still, LORAN-C is output in several different ways through different in-cockpit instruments. NDB, which is still very much in use based on what I've read, is output through the ADF which is not a navaid itself, but an instrument installed in the cockpit panel. Not to mention the fact that all of this and more, requires that multiple instruments be installed in the cockpit to be of any use to anyone at all - which also means, a different set of procedures for their individual usage (increased pilot workloads).

At some point, being a non-pilot, I am forced to stop and ask myself, why the split pea soup of navaids. When you look at the U.S. based navaids, its like a smorgasbord of flavors out there. Was it the fact that one technology came along and supplanted the other? Or, did multiple technologies get merged together to form a hybrid in some cases? Did the government just get lazy and decided not to advance the technology by integrating components into a singular, unified Navaid concept?

Today, you have aircraft in the U.S. being forced to fly circuitous routes just to get from point "A" to point "B," where the distance between both points is often times significantly less than the total lateral distance flown, all because of the way the navaids are laid out across the country and because of the way they function.

I think I understand the issue, I just want to hear it from other licensed pilots.

I've often wondered how you guys know which one's to use and under what circumstances do you favor one over the other, or do you use them all at the same time in some sort of Navigation Symphony in the sky?

If I had my way, I would at the very least organize and categorize navaids in the following way:

• Departure Navaids
• En Route Navaids
• Approach Navaids
• Landing Navaids

I can hear someone saying, "Why. Why on earth would you do such a crazy thing?"

Well, heck - I don't know. I'm obviously not yet a pilot. However, what I do know is that my brain loves to organize things. Maybe one of you will point me to a book or publication that explains how these navaids are already organized in such a fashion, or better.

I know that navaids are different because of their function - they each do different things - I get that. It just seems a bit weird to me that pilots are flying around the skies with a multitude of different equipment requirements just to handle the split pea soup that is today's navaid labyrinth.

I'm not out to single handily change it. I'm not railing against it. I will have to learn how to use it. I'm just sitting here wondering why it has taken so long before anyone bothered to integrate this stuff in far more logical manner than it is today.

Maybe this is what RNP/PBN is all about, but the current equipment requirements for RNP would sideline the vast majority of GA aircraft being flown today.

Do you guys ever foresee the navaid split pea soup becoming a nice, smooth, tasty vanilla shake some day?

Cheers.

 

[gprellwitz]

It's getting simpler all the time. They've gotten rid of fire signal towers, A/N ranges and LORAN. They've pretty much stopped maintaining NDBs, so those are going away, and VORs (the generic term we use for all those derivative technologies, because the differences really don't matter to us) are starting to go the same route. So you will have left the ILS and GPS. And I'm not too sure about the ILS.

 

[Dr. O]

You are gonna teach yourself some really bad habits causing some unsuspecting CFI to snatch himself bald down the road..

Take ground school at the local community college or the local flight school.
Hang around the local flight school or general airport and see if you can get some SIM time with an actual instructor.
I don't know your personality, but if you are likeable you may even get invited to go flying once in a while if the pilots get used to seeing you around.
Take your copy of Microsoft Flight and throw it in the trash. It is great fun but is a horror show if you use it thinking you are learning flying or procedures or anything attached to the real world. The best analogy I can make is playing a computer racing game and thinking you can then strap into a 200 mph race car and hit the high banks at full throttle.

 

[DutchessFlier]

Take your copy of Microsoft Flight and throw it in the trash. It is great fun but is a horror show if you use it thinking you are learning flying or procedures or anything attached to the real world. The best analogy I can make is playing a computer racing game and thinking you can then strap into a 200 mph race car and hit the high banks at full throttle.

AMEN

 

[PBristolJr]

Vr, where are you located? I'm sure there are a lot of pilots on here, including myself, that wouldn't mind taking you up.

I don't like MSFS, but I do like X-Plane.
The sim isn't great for touch and feel, but for navigating and especially IFR procedures it's incredibly helpful.

 

[Henning]

The VFR chart doesn't even show the presence of LORAN-C. Still, LORAN-C is output in several different ways through different in-cockpit instruments. NDB, which is still very much in use based on what I've read, is output through the ADF which is not a navaid itself, but an instrument installed in the cockpit panel. Not to mention the fact that all of this and more, requires that multiple instruments be installed in the cockpit to be of any use to anyone at all - which also means, a different set of procedures for their individual usage (increased pilot workloads).

At some point, being a non-pilot, I am forced to stop and ask myself, why the split pea soup of navaids. When you look at the U.S. based navaids, its like a smorgasbord of flavors out there. Was it the fact that one technology came along and supplanted the other? Or, did multiple technologies get merged together to form a hybrid in some cases? Did the government just get lazy and decided not to advance the technology by integrating components into a singular, unified Navaid concept?

LORAN C no longer exists, there are no broadcasting stations. R-NAV is a semi generic term for Area Navigation, there are 3 basic systems that GA used, a VOR based system which is still usable if you have the radio, a LORAN based system which is turned off and is a waste of fuel to keep in the plane, and the current GPS system.

The VOR system didn't really 'morph', the VOR is still the same, the DME is another piece of equipment that allows a DME radio in the plane to get the slant range station. These features are just co-located at the same point for practicality. TACAN is military equipment which serves the same purpose as the VOR/DME.

All these systems are different because they were all developed at different electronic eras.

 

[taters]

Flight Sims helped me a ton before I became a "real pilot" in the late 90's

-yes I did tend to be glued to the panel initially when I began lessons but my CFI covered up most of the panel and fixed that problem in an hour or 2

Good luck with your journey..those who say FSX is a "waste of time" etc...gimme a break its a wonderful tool

 

[MAKG1]

There IS a navigational system older than the Pyramids. Pilotage.

Pilotage is how you get around VFR. Everything else is secondary.

And I have yet to see a desktop sim where you can fly a good VFR traffic pattern. They do not correspond to reality.

You're focusing on the wrong parts of flying. Navigation is part of it, but it's not where you're going to get stuck.

If you want to play games, go ahead, but remember that they are games. MSFS will not teach you much about flying. Where it really gets challenging is when you hit unexpected ridge turbulence during descent into the pattern, there are six other aircraft coming in from all around, Tower tells you to follow the Cherokee turning right base that you can't spot because he's two miles out and 200 feet low, a helicopter calls in (they fly the opposite pattern), there are multiple flocks of birds in the air, passenger #1 throws up and passenger #2 has a camera "emergency." All at the same time. Very little of that is in your sim.

 

[Alexb2000]

In your other thread you said you're going to be flying a VLJ as soon as possible. Sounds like you have the money, why wait? Plenty to be learned flying a Cub around until you get serious about it and total time will be your biggest challenge for awhile, don't waste any time.

 

[LDJones]

Use the sim to learn the basics of NDB and VOR...only because that's what's on the knowledge test. You'll likely never use an NDB in real life. VORs will be around awhile. Save the ILS for your instrument rating.

As for placement, there are a million and one reasons/stories/political favors that probably explain the whys of navaid placement, none of which really matter because they are where they are and they're not moving. Some may go away, but most won't be moving!

None of the above will matter til you learn basic stick-n-rudder skills, which flight so doesn't do much to develop. Just start flying as soon as you can.

 

[JHW]

OP, whatever you are doing, stop. You're so far out in left field there is no point in continuing. If you want to learn to fly then to to an airport, rent a plane and instructor, and go to it.

Aside from that, since you write that loran C is of interest to you I have a couple units on the shelf that worked great when removed, I'll make you a good deal on them.

 

[gprellwitz]

Use the sim to learn the basics of NDB and VOR...only because that's what's on the knowledge test. You'll likely never use an NDB in real life. VORs will be around awhile. Save the ILS for your instrument rating.

The OP mentioned that he would be doing intercontinental flying. NDBs are much more prevalent outside the USA. That said, in a VLJ, many of the airports he would be visiting would likely have an ILS, and he would be using the GPS in lieu of the NDB in many/most cases in any case.

 

[hpux735]

It seems like you're highly motivated, and that's a good thing...

However...

Learning to fly (and getting the base PPL) has little to do with navigation. Sure, there's some of it, but that should come mostly from looking out the window and maps. You'll need to do some VOR tracking, but that's about it.

Getting the PPL is about learning to control the plane in space.

That said, there are some things you can do. First of all, figure out what plane you're going to use for training. Then, find a checklist (I like checkmate) for that plane and an accurate example to use in the sim (using X-plane). When you start your sim session, start on the ramp with the engine off. Every time, do your checklist. Do your runup check list. Do all your checklists. Be fanatical about it.

I think it is possible to learn the relationships between power and pitch in the sim. Try long straight-in approaches. As mentioned, it's almost impossible to do a rectangle pattern in a sim, you look out the side windows too much. Then, you should be able to replay your touchdown and see whether your flared at the right height. Once that's perfect, do it with crosswinds. Learn to crab and slip.

Do long cross countries, without increasing simulation speed or autopilot. That will show you how important trim and keeping focused can be.

I understand the comments of others here that sims are useless, and your instructor will have to force you to unlearn some bad habits. But, it's not the end of the world. I spent a huge amount of time in the sim before my PPL training, and the world didn't collapse, but I did have 9 or so log-able hours from when I was 16 and about 40 hours (not log-able) flying with my dad. I passed my checkride at 40.5 hours.

Understand that almost all the stuff you talked about is IFR only. Don't even spend time thinking about it. Also, we are working on a single, unified navaid system, it's called GPS.

Xplane flight school:
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showforum=90

 

[MAKG1]

Also, we are working on a single, unified navaid system, it's called GPS.

Wrong. There will never be one centralized navigation system. It would be vulnerable to failure and sabotage, just because it's the only one. Eurocontrol is much further down the GPS path than the US is, and there are still quite a lot of VORs in Europe. It ain't gonna change soon, probably ever. Europe has a long history of warfare, and a navigation system that can guide the enemy to your essential infrastructure will be the first to go in an air war.

Even if there were, it takes the FAA decades to make a transition. The ARTCCs are still phasing in the traffic management tools I was working on in 2001-2003.

Having said that, navigation is thoroughly the wrong target.

 

[JHW]

...Eurocontrol is much further down the GPS path than the US is, and there are still quite a lot of VORs in Europe...

and NDB's. Most pilots here scoff at the idea of having an ADF in their plane, but take delivery of a new gulfstream and it's likely to have 2 of them.

 

[Positive Rate]

You are gonna teach yourself some really bad habits causing some unsuspecting CFI to snatch himself bald down the road..

Take ground school at the local community college or the local flight school.
Hang around the local flight school or general airport and see if you can get some SIM time with an actual instructor.
I don't know your personality, but if you are likeable you may even get invited to go flying once in a while if the pilots get used to seeing you around.
Take your copy of Microsoft Flight and throw it in the trash. It is great fun but is a horror show if you use it thinking you are learning flying or procedures or anything attached to the real world. The best analogy I can make is playing a computer racing game and thinking you can then strap into a 200 mph race car and hit the high banks at full throttle.

I'll try to use this post as it is representative of several posts that miss the point of this thread, and then I'll try to reply to some of the others.

1) Desktop flight simulators do not provide kinesthetic feedback.

I stipulated this in the OP. I am not looking for a kinesthetic experience in 3-dimensional space and through 6-degrees of freedom. I do not want to spend money on a RedBird full-motion simulator at this time, until I have a better understanding of what I can expect in terms of ROI from such an investment - however, something like that is part of the plan in the future.

2) My flight training does not start until late this year, or very early next year and I will study books, manuals, FAA publications and the like until such time that actual flight training begins.

I stipulated this in the OP. I will go through home-study DVD courses for Private Pilot, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-Engine ratings. I will more than likely go through those DVD courses multiple times before the actual training begins.

3) Taking the flight simulator and throwing it into the trash seems incredibly hasty.

This video shows a simulation of the JS32 Turbo-Prop, flying an I-5 certification using the PilotEdge Live ATC system. In this video, you can see that the aircraft systems are modeled to fairly high level of fidelity during the Engine Start Procedures. You can also see the level of live ATC modeling that happens on PilotEdge as well, in conjunction with the level of Instrument Procedures required to fly the I-5 profile in low to no visibility (in the clouds).

This video shows a simulation of the C182, flying an IMC departure with a simulated vacuum failure that affects the Attitude Indicator and the Heading Indicator. You can see the Procedures used during this systems failure (whether or not he used the correct Procedures is for you experts to decide) and you can clearly tell that some mental work needs to be accomplished to handle the situation correctly in order to land the aircraft safely.

My interest is in Procedures, not developing Muscle Memory and Kinesthetic Reflex. I'm interested in the knowledge necessary to accomplish these Procedural Tasks. I can read a book about such things, which makes perfectly good sense. But, why not put the brain into a semi-immersive environment where that which is read about can be experienced intellectually with a deeper memory hook for better recall when necessary?

If the Procedures are correct, what makes this form of exposure less effective than reading about doing such things in a book or manual? If one can get a head-start on such things before the real training begins and they are done correctly, how does that hurt the student's ability to perform similar tasks during real training? If the simulation can be done properly. How does that not benefit the student during their actual training?

Doing any complex physical task, first requires an intellectual framework that revolves around some kind of well understood process. If the student can slow down and focus on each meaningful component of a complex process until they understand where each part of the process fits inside the whole, then how does that hurt the student in the aggregate?

Driving IndyCar at 235mph through turn number #3, is very demanding, but according IndyCar drivers who do such things on a regular basis, it is also very much Muscle Memory related - similar to a MLB player who learns through Muscle Memory, how to hit a curve ball, or the right handed PGA Tour player who learns how to hit a High Draw into green with a left to right slope and a left side pin placement.

The act of making such a swing (in the moment) is pure Muscle Memory. There is no time to "think" about making such a move with the human body in the moment. The act of being able to make such a swing comes through a Process of repetition and practicing the correct swing mechanics.

Why can't the student practice the same correct procedures in a simulator that will be required of them during the actual training process and once they become a licensed pilot? Why would anyone toss such an opportunity into the trash can?

Thanks.

 

[Positive Rate]

If you want to play games, go ahead, but remember that they are games. MSFS will not teach you much about flying.

Once again - I'm not interested in kinesthetics, nor I am interested in "learning how to fly" using a desktop flight simulator, which was stipulated at the outset of the OP for those who actually read it.

Where it really gets challenging is when you hit unexpected ridge turbulence during descent into the pattern,

Kinesthetics.

...there are six other aircraft coming in from all around,

Situational Awareness.

...Tower tells you to follow the Cherokee turning right base that you can't spot because he's two miles out and 200 feet low, a helicopter calls in (they fly the opposite pattern)

Live ATC, Live Air Traffic and Live Weather Engine simulation. I see video of those guys dealing with this all the time.

...there are multiple flocks of birds in the air,

Turn the "Animation" feature "On" in the simulator and flocks of birds in the air ye shall receive. Slide up the "Realism" feature and bird strikes are possible.

..passenger #1 throws up and passenger #2 has a camera "emergency."

Brief your passengers better before each flight regarding acceptable behavior on-board your aircraft (you are the PIC) and hand out huge doses of Dramamine before talking with Clearance Delivery.

[just kidding about the huge doses of Dramamine] But, I was not kidding about the passenger briefings. I plan to do that, am I'm not even a pilot yet. Everyone who gets on-board any aircraft I fly, will go through a short briefing, so they understand the risks involved in flying, some basic safety procedures to follow in case of an emergency during the flight, and the types of behavior (passenger conduct) that could inhibit Safety of Flight and why those behaviors should not be allowed to emerge at any time whatsoever while on-board my aircraft.

All at the same time. Very little of that is in your sim.

Three of them are in the sim and can be simulated. Two of them don't belong in a desktop sim. One of them can be mitigated with good pre-flight passenger briefing on acceptable behavior and one of them would require force feeding Dramamine (I'm still just kidding about that - so laugh).

Look. I'm not trying to become Mr. Super Pilot in all phases of Flying. I've already stipulated this up front. My targets are very focused:

- Procedures (normal, abnormal, systems, instrument, emergency, etc.)
- Mental Frameworks (where should my brain be focused and why)
- Process Orientation (routines, protocols, practices, standard operations)

I'm trying to get a head-start on developing a good sense of What needs to be done, When it needs to be done, Why it needs to be done, Where it needs to be done and How it should be done.

 

[Positive Rate]

In your other thread you said you're going to be flying a VLJ as soon as possible. Sounds like you have the money, why wait? Plenty to be learned flying a Cub around until you get serious about it and total time will be your biggest challenge for awhile, don't waste any time.

I have other things to do before I commit eight (8) hours a day to flight training and time building. Some of the time building will require overnight cross countries because of the other industry/educational components that will be built into the program (air shows, seminars, conventions, meetings, etc.)

Right now, I'm doing other things that require me to be in my office. However, I want to jump start as much as possible and preemptively go after certain things that will occupy lots of mental cycles during actual training.

I'm trying to free-up my brain during those times, so I can dig into the subject matter without all the stress and fear that comes from the unknown and that comes from not having seen, heard and/or experienced things before.

I don't want to be stressing out over trying to make radio calls, while managing the aircraft, its heading, its airspeed, its rate of climb/descent, tracking a VOR, setting bugs, dialing in new radio frequencies, watching for traffic - all while my instructor sits there shaking his/her head, wondering if I've got a brain, because they have previously gone over this same material with me just "yesterday," or because I don't pick it up as "smoothly" as his/her last student.

I'm trying to preempt some of that "manual labor," (memory work and procedural work) so my focus can be on what I'm being taught at a higher level and rate of mental absorption.

In other words, I'd like to start working on some lower level stuff right now. In the sim, I can drill things over and over again, in such a way that would not be possible in a real aircraft - adding variations on the same theme to expand the learning process over time - again, in ways that can't be replicated in a real aircraft as far as the quantity repetition is concerned.

Of course, the quality of experience can never be trumped by the real thing - but, I don't have time for escaping to the airport right now. So, the sim is the next best alternative.

 

[Positive Rate]

Use the sim to learn the basics of NDB and VOR...only because that's what's on the knowledge test. You'll likely never use an NDB in real life. VORs will be around awhile. Save the ILS for your instrument rating.

Well, this is the kind of stuff I'm trying to figure out. Much of the VFR work (correct me if I am wrong) encompasses the kinesthetic realm that I cannot replicate very well inside a desktop simulator (nor is that my intention).

Let's take one example: Turns About a Fixed Point

Ok, sure. I could use my webcam + Ezdok and get a fairly good look at some fixed point on the ground as a reference and then attempt to hold both bank angle, altitude and airspeed around that fixed point. Of course, that would be a nice thing to do.

However, I won't get the kinesthetics of Wind Correction during the trurn, though I would get some control input variation requirements during upwind -vs- downwind components within the turn. The point is that such exercises are very physically oriented because they involved purely visual relationships connected to physical actions being taken with respect to the aircraft.

So, when you say "because that's what's on the knowledge test," aren't there things that I can also do with respect to Instrument Flying/Instrument Procedures, that would help me get something of a head start on developing good instrument skills, that are not necessarily all tied to the Private Pilot PTS?

As for placement, there are a million and one reasons/stories/political favors that probably explain the whys of navaid placement, none of which really matter because they are where they are and they're not moving. Some may go away, but most won't be moving!

I was trying to understand why it had taken so long to get to a more technologically advanced navaid system in this country, especially when GPS has been around and available for quite some time now.

I hear different things from different people with varying degrees of net effect. Some believe that VOR is out the door soon, while others say the VOR is here to stay forever. Some tell me that I'll never use an NDB once I'm ready to fly PIC, while other say they wills till be around. Still, others conclude that even ILS is on its way out the proverbial door, in favor of a pure GPS solution with lateral and vertical guidance.

Its all very strange to me. It just seems like it would be a lot more split pea soup like, given the seriousness with which we place so much reliance on this stuff for our national air transportation system.

The system does work - I'm not saying it does not work. But, I am saying that it does seem very archaic at best and borderline draconian at other levels. If it ain't broke - don't fix it, I guess. Still, I hear some say "it is very broken, indeed."

None of the above will matter til you learn basic stick-n-rudder skills, which flight so doesn't do much to develop. Just start flying as soon as you can.

I can't do stick-n-rudder right now on any consistent enough basis - I'm locked into the office for a while doing other necessary things. I'd like to be able to get some Procedure work in, however. If that is possible.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Positive Rate]

The OP mentioned that he would be doing intercontinental flying. NDBs are much more prevalent outside the USA.

That's what I read as well.

That said, in a VLJ, many of the airports he would be visiting would likely have an ILS, and he would be using the GPS in lieu of the NDB in many/most cases in any case.

I just updated the Garmin 400/500 Series Trainer that is used as the "engine" for the GNS 430/530 WAAS units that I recently integrated into a Cessna T210 for FSX.

This upgrade included the latest [actual] AIRAC Cycle Navdata. I also went ahead and updated the flight simulator's Navaid data as well. So, I was able to see all the changes in navaids from about 2005 through 2010. There were a lot of new GPS Navaids added to the system here in the United States, so I can confirm some of what you are saying.

In the United Kingdom, for example, there are more GPS type Navaids being added to their system as well through these various Cycle upgrades. I've seen Cycle upgrades including new Navaids for Africa, Japan and the Middle East as well - all of them include a number of new GPS type additions to their respective systems.

 

[iflyforfun]

Of course, the quality of experience can never be trumped by the real thing - but, I don't have time for escaping to the airport right now. So, the sim is the next best alternative.

There is nothing you can say or do ... many on here are wedded to the "throw it away, you're an idiot, take lessons" approach. Many with that attitude have a lot of experience and shouldn't be ignored completely.

That said, you seem to have an interesting approach, lots of enthusiasm and some time and money. I would suggest that you MIGHT get past some of the "you'll poke your eye out" criticism here if you realize and accept that you can indeed learn some pretty bad habits.

I would also suggest that some of that MIGHT be avoided. I would suggest you consider hiring an instructor to simply teach you the procedures you are interested in learning. He/she can watch over your simulator time and try to prevent / limit the impact of some of your bad habits. These are bad habits that you will develop without even knowing it ... but your instructor will.

From your post, it doesn't seem that money is a problem. If that is the case and you want to leverage your time, use an instructor as a mentor. He/she can help with ground school, procedure training and a general introduction to aviation that should help you avoid / limit bad habits. This is essentially what Redbird does with its Skyport sim/actual training program. Get someone to help you leverage the sim and you should be fine. Just do it on your own 'cause you're smarter than everyone else and you'll be fine, but you won't do near as well as you could with some expert assistance.

That said, just so I don't get voted off the island, throw away the simulator, you must be crazy kid, you're gonna poke your eye out.

 

[Positive Rate]

First of all, figure out what plane you're going to use for training. Then, find a checklist (I like checkmate) for that plane and an accurate example to use in the sim (using X-plane).

That list has been finalized. It includes SEL, MEL, Turbo-Prop and VLJ selections. Those same aircraft will be used in the simulator - that has always been the plan.

When you start your sim session, start on the ramp with the engine off.

I always do a Cold/Dark on the ramp. That forces me to go through the Check List each time without fail and it forces a taxi to the active without fail.

I was born fanatical. [just kidding - maybe]

I think it is possible to learn the relationships between power and pitch in the sim.

Wow! You actually read the posts. Kudos to you!

Author Gregory M. Penglis, agrees with you 100%. He believes that this is one of the key areas that keep students stuck in "basic training" longer than they have to, merely because their instructors don't teach them right off the bat, how to control the aircraft using Pitch | Power | Trim for all the key phases of a normal flight profile.

Try long straight-in approaches. As mentioned, it's almost impossible to do a rectangle pattern in a sim, you look out the side windows too much.

Well, well, well. I think I can learn something from you. This is a very interesting subject for me, indeed. Here's why.

I kept trying to fly those "rectangles in the sky" that look so good on all those Jeppesen, King Schools and Sporty's videos but kept failing. And, yes - it lead to constantly looking at the windows all the time and failing to pay attention to the gauges and instruments.

So. I began taking the runway heading and calculating the:

- 180 degree reciprocal
- 90 degree perpendicular angle (right and left traffic)

I then used the Directional Gyro and flew the 180 reciprocal on the downwind leg at a specific distance from the runway centerline/runway heading. That gave me a parallel opposite track.

For Right Traffic, I then turned to the 90 degree perpendicular angle relative to the runway centerline/runway heading. That put me on Base leg. With a quick glance out the right side of the aircraft, I would begin a turn back to the runway heading using the Directional Gyro, rolling out on the number.

Each time I did this, the runway was pretty much directly in front of the nose of the aircraft. I then put the runway numbers in a fixed spot on the windshield of the aircraft to set the Pitch angle. That seemed to take the aircraft straight down to the runway threshold each time.

I'm not a pilot. I don't know if this was the proper way to do it - but it works each time I try.

Then, you should be able to replay your touchdown and see whether your flared at the right height. Once that's perfect, do it with crosswinds. Learn to crab and slip.

To be honest - all the landing and flaring and cross-wind stuff seems very kinesthetic to me.

With landings, the actual visual references while seated in the cockpit of a real aircraft will be quite different than in a desktop sim. So, the runway location with respect to height above the ground will appear different and that should affect the flare timing.

I practice crabs and slips all the time depending on the surface winds in play. I set the Weather Engine to use Real Weather through the current METAR. So, whatever winds are reflected in the METAR is what I get in the sim.

To me - the most interesting thing about all this was finding a way to actually fly that Rectangle in the Sky approach using the DG and the known runway heading.

Do you see a problem with this method? To unconventional? To unrealistic? To detailed? Not detailed enough?

Do long cross countries, without increasing simulation speed or autopilot. That will show you how important trim and keeping focused can be.

I'm going to be doing this with Pen & Paper Flight Plans and with Electronic Flight Plans using the GNS and eventually the G1000 (later). However, I want the fundamentals first. Pen & Paper with an E6B and some Sectional Charts. That's the stuff I want to get good at doing. Fuel planning. Route planning. Alternate planning. Wind Correction - all that stuff I've read about and watched in Jeppesen/King/Sporty's videos.

After the Pen & Paper, I hope to learn how to do the same with the GNS 430W/530W. I've got the Garmin Trainer and some additional study materials for that as well. I also have the G1000 Trainer.

But, fundamentals first. This is what I hope to be able to start doing with the sim.

Understand that almost all the stuff you talked about is IFR only. Don't even spend time thinking about it. Also, we are working on a single, unified navaid system, it's called GPS.

From a logical standpoint, can you explain the difference between VFR and IFR, as it specifically relates to using Instruments and Avionics?

I mean, when a VFR only pilot uses the VOR instrument to navigate between two stations, and the IFR pilot does the same thing, at what point are they doing anything that differentiates their actions? I know there is a legal difference between the two, but you said don't spend any time thinking about IFR. There's only so much "dead reckoning" one can do in a desktop simulator.

I know there is some VFR stuff that I can practice that is Procedural (you've helped with some of that), but the hope was to get a jump start on some of the Instrument Procedures as well - so that they are not brand new to me during that part of my training.

Thanks for your input! I have a LOT of questions coming up for this forum in just a bit. Right now, I'm getting the simulation environment set-up the way I need it, with aircraft configured the way they will be used in the real world training environment in terms of their Avionics and Instrumentation.

When I'm done with that, I'll be ready with some technical questions about Procedures.

Like I said, most of my questions will be answered away from the forum, in the training & study materials that I'll be using. But, I'm sure there will be times when even those materials are not abundantly clear to me. Those are the questions I'll bring here, for those willing to help. The questions will be focused and relevant to a specific task and/or aspect of flying.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[Positive Rate]

There is nothing you can say or do ... many on here are wedded to the "throw it away, you're an idiot, take lessons" approach. Many with that attitude have a lot of experience and shouldn't be ignored completely.

I'd like them to attempt to take their own hard earned money (cold hard cash) and engage the financial markets as a trader, without doing any simulated trading. Just go out and "take some lessons" about "trading" (lol) and then jump right into the international currency markets, as just one example of losing your shirt in a nanosecond.

If the simulation environment contains good fidelity, which means that it approximates the real thing with a fair amount of precision and/or accuracy in terms of Procedure, then one can begin the process of developing the Mental Skills necessary work the real thing. In the markets, you are not going to make any money merely because you simulated your trading. However, you will definitely understand how to use the trading platform, when things start moving at the speed of light and your emotions are running high.

You will also learn how to control your emotions when things start moving at the speed of light and that will enable you to handle your trading Procedures in a much more responsible manner, which could save your shirt one day. All brought to you by "appropriate" simulation.

I don't expect to learn how to be a pilot using a simulator, but I do understand that one can develop a good sense of Process and Protocol. For example: It is one thing to sit and read a book about how the HSI works. But, why not take that book and couple what you read to an HSI that is coupled to a real aircraft simulation? To me, not do so, is a wasted opportunity to learn something of value.

How does the HSI work? I can read about one - or I can simulate using one in real-time. Which is the better platform for learning?

You can read about the EURUSD, but how can you possibly drive revenues from its existence, when you don't even know how it operates or functions in the market. Training? Training won't make you a trader, I'm sorry. It won't happen. Precise practice of methods that work makes one a consistent trader. You can be trained to do the wrong things consistently in the markets, too.

Sim the darn thing until you understand its Fundamentals cold - then you can profit from its existence in the market - but not a moment before then. That's all I'm trying to do. I want to jump start the process of learning "good habits" not bad habits.

I'm blown away by some of the pilots who can see this far, quite frankly.

That said, you seem to have an interesting approach, lots of enthusiasm and some time and money. I would suggest that you MIGHT get past some of the "you'll poke your eye out" criticism here if you realize and accept that you can indeed learn some pretty bad habits.

It is the exact same thing with any simulation. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. Practice bad procedures and you'll no doubt, inject that into your real flying. Not something I want to do and that's why I mentioned not doing so in my original post.

I don't want to learn bad habits that have to be unlearned later on.

I would also suggest that some of that MIGHT be avoided. I would suggest you consider hiring an instructor to simply teach you the procedures you are interested in learning. He/she can watch over your simulator time and try to prevent / limit the impact of some of your bad habits. These are bad habits that you will develop without even knowing it ... but your instructor will.

I guess you are saying that I should go out and hire an instructor, let them give me lessons and instruction on the simulator, then give me an assignment that I can record and playback for the instructor at some later time for their critique.

Ok, that's a possibility. Thanks!

Get someone to help you leverage the sim and you should be fine. Just do it on your own 'cause you're smarter than everyone else and you'll be fine, but you won't do near as well as you could with some expert assistance.

If I felt I was smarter than everyone else, I wouldn't be here asking questions. Or, anywhere asking questions for that matter. So, I'm not quite clear on that point.

However, leveraging the sim and my time is important and doing that with a "mentor" (as you call it) seems plausible.

That said, just so I don't get voted off the island, throw away the simulator, you must be crazy kid, you're gonna poke your eye out.

I think CFIs and CFIIs should learn to work with students utilizing such technology. They must be stuck in Microsoft Flight Simulator circa 1913. Lockheed Martin uses what is essentially the base code for FSX, re-worked and made better. The point being that LM classifies their P3D as mission capable for realistic training simulations and they offer their product on a commercial basis.

So, people can call it a toy all day long, but you can optimize FSX (with some work) to run fairly congruently with P3D, though not as smoothly in terms of frames per second - but that's a hardware issue in FSX anyway.

Thanks for the input.

 

[EppyGA]

From a logical standpoint, can you explain the difference between VFR and IFR, as it specifically relates to using Instruments and Avionics?

I mean, when a VFR only pilot uses the VOR instrument to navigate between two stations, and the IFR pilot does the same thing, at what point are they doing anything that differentiates their actions? I know there is a legal difference between the two, but you said don't spend any time thinking about IFR. There's only so much "dead reckoning" one can do in a desktop simulator.

I know there is some VFR stuff that I can practice that is Procedural (you've helped with some of that), but the hope was to get a jump start on some of the Instrument Procedures as well - so that they are not brand new to me during that part of my training.

I started training in 1970 but had to stop in 1972 due to money constraints. I was not in a position to train again until 2008. During that time I owned many a computer and nearly all versions of the Flight Simulator from the pre-Microsoft days to current day. I used to simulator to work on navigation stuff, especially as I started back into training.

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

As far as your VFR - IFR scenario. The VFR pilot may be flying to or from a VOR but he still has ground references that he can check along the way to tell him where his is and how he is doing while the IFR pilot does not have those references at all.

I would be careful about using the simulator for IFR related stuff until you actually enter training for the rating. Then you can use it to recap what you are learning for your CFII. If you try to use it to get ahead of things you my end up with the CFII having to break some bad habits thus costing you money along the way.

 

[MAKG1]

Dude, I'm the product lead for multiple simulation products. We use them for downstream development, procedures development, training, integration, even proof of concept for modification of the systems they are simulating.

Simulators have limits that you MUST respect. Simulators of physical systems have physical limits. Your example of a financial simulator does NOT fall into that category, but flight simulation does.

You seem to "know" that simulation technology is the answer. At best, it can be part of the answer, but not where physical sensation is paramount. And that's where primary flight training is. You're focusing on the wrong thing. You will not "lose your shirt" training in the air with an instructor. Quite the opposite.

The absolute first thing you need to learn about flying is that it is a physical skill, and is NOT like learning a mental task. At least primary training is. There are some mental aspects to that, but they are related to keeping cool under pressure. I don't care how many stalls you go through on the simulator, you're not going to have the slightest clue how cool you are until you dip a wing in a real aircraft for the first time.

Simulation can be used as an adjunct to airborne training for certain very limited tasks, but it simply is not a substitute for primary training. It can be done entirely with no simulation without significant loss of benefit and only marginal loss in cost. The FAA only allows 5 hours simulator time in primary training, and virtually everything you do on it will need to be repeated for real. And I think you'll find it's useless once you fly a real airplane.

You say you're "asking questions," but there sure are a lot of answers in there. Wrong ones that you're clinging to. And I get the distinct impression you have something to sell.

 

[Alexb2000]

I have other things to do before I commit eight (8) hours a day to flight training and time building. Some of the time building will require overnight cross countries because of the other industry/educational components that will be built into the program (air shows, seminars, conventions, meetings, etc.)

Right now, I'm doing other things that require me to be in my office. However, I want to jump start as much as possible and preemptively go after certain things that will occupy lots of mental cycles during actual training.

I'm trying to free-up my brain during those times, so I can dig into the subject matter without all the stress and fear that comes from the unknown and that comes from not having seen, heard and/or experienced things before.

I don't want to be stressing out over trying to make radio calls, while managing the aircraft, its heading, its airspeed, its rate of climb/descent, tracking a VOR, setting bugs, dialing in new radio frequencies, watching for traffic - all while my instructor sits there shaking his/her head, wondering if I've got a brain, because they have previously gone over this same material with me just "yesterday," or because I don't pick it up as "smoothly" as his/her last student.

I'm trying to preempt some of that "manual labor," (memory work and procedural work) so my focus can be on what I'm being taught at a higher level and rate of mental absorption.

In other words, I'd like to start working on some lower level stuff right now. In the sim, I can drill things over and over again, in such a way that would not be possible in a real aircraft - adding variations on the same theme to expand the learning process over time - again, in ways that can't be replicated in a real aircraft as far as the quantity repetition is concerned.

Of course, the quality of experience can never be trumped by the real thing - but, I don't have time for escaping to the airport right now. So, the sim is the next best alternative.

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. 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.

 

[JasonM]

I don't think its a bad idea for you to use a sim. I am a low hour student and I practice the same maneuvers I learn at my flight lessons. 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. on my laptop in x-plane I can hold the right mouse button all the time and look around like in real life. 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. 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!

 

[cowman]

I found I can use my real world flight training experience to make the flight simulator plane do what I want but it doesn't work in reverse.

 

[roddie]

This is going to be a stream of consciousness post, so forgive the formatting, but let me tell you what worked for me -- YMMV.

Three years before I ever sat in a GA plane for my discovery flight or even considered getting my PPL, I started messing around with FS9/FSX/X-Plane. At the time, I knew almost zero about airplanes or aviation concepts.

It seems like you've got a pretty good grasp (and everyone has reminded you) on what you can't learn from simming, so I won't cover that, but here are the concepts I picked up that I feel helped me greatly once I actually did start the process (again, YMMV):

- The four forces of flight
- What a pattern is, what all of legs of the pattern are called
- The principals on how to fly a pattern (TPA, sight picture, procedure when you're abeam the numbers, etc)
- What flaps were used for
- The concept of the relationship between power and pitch
- How, when, and why to adjust the above during an approach
- What crabbing is and what slipping is used for.
- What a flare is
- What wind correction is and how to calculate it for flight plan

- How to follow a checklist (I stayed disciplined instead of hitting CTRL-E to start the engine(s))

- Taxiways and runway identifications and what the signage/markings mean
- How to read a VFR sectional

- Navigation with VORs (radials, intersections, flying to/from)
- What an airway was and what they're used for
- Altitudes for direction of flight
- The difference between true course and magnetic heading
- Navigation with NDB
- developing a proper scan (handy for the hoodwork)

A LOT of the above is in just the basic FS9/FSX tutorials (Rod Machado walks you through it), and the rest at various Sim websites. Yes, I could have gotten most of it out of a book, but that wouldn't have been as much fun as actually getting to "see" and "use" the knobs and switches, and I don't think my retention would have been as good.

Did I know how to fly or handle a real airplane because of this? No, but I had enough of a handle on what everything was for that I wasn't near as nervous as I might have been otherwise. I also didn't need to ask my CFI to repeat himself, since I already knew a lot of the concepts, and he was essentially just connecting the dots for me. I could concentrate on just handling the airplane and looking outside without having to worry about what button did what.

NOW.. let's add VATSIM to the mix; here's what I learned:

- What the various ATC stations were (C&D, Ground, Tower, APP/DEP, Center), and what they covered
- "proper" radio phraseology (yes, I know it's not 100%, but neither is the real thing)
- Radio hand-offs
- What/when to expect from ATC in terms of instructions, clearances (again not 100%, but see above)
- How to communicate with other traffic on CTAF (same caveat)

- Airspace rules, restrictions beyond what I learned from the sectionals
- Some of the various VFR transitions out there and how to navigate them (LAX Mini, Coliseum, Shoreline, etc.)
- How to use the radio for the above

- For IFR - how to read and interpret departure/approach charts, concepts for flying SID/STARs
- ATC phraseology for the above

- How to read an ATIS and why it matters
- Basic weather concepts, crosswinds
- Chosing a runway based on winds

The biggest thing with VATSIM that helped me was the radio piece. I was comfortable on and around the radio from day one of my PPL process. I knew how to listen for my callsign and what to listen for, and I knew how to respond.

I'll say it again before people jump all over me: I did not learn how to fly an airplane using home sims, however all of the above made it a WHOLE lot easier and faster for me to learn.

Oh, let me add one more thing that I did (or didn't do) based on advice from a friend. From the day that I started my lessons until my checkride, I did NOT touch a simulator. I can most definitely see how that could screw you up during the process, so I suggest simply staying away from it.

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.

Roddie

 

[JHW]

I'll try to use this post as it is representative of several posts that miss the point of this thread, and then I'll try to reply to some of the others.

1) Desktop flight simulators do not provide kinesthetic feedback.

I stipulated this in the OP. I am not looking for a kinesthetic experience in 3-dimensional space and through 6-degrees of freedom. I do not want to spend money on a RedBird full-motion simulator at this time, until I have a better understanding of what I can expect in terms of ROI from such an investment - however, something like that is part of the plan in the future.

2) My flight training does not start until late this year, or very early next year and I will study books, manuals, FAA publications and the like until such time that actual flight training begins.

I stipulated this in the OP. I will go through home-study DVD courses for Private Pilot, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-Engine ratings. I will more than likely go through those DVD courses multiple times before the actual training begins.

3) Taking the flight simulator and throwing it into the trash seems incredibly hasty.

This video shows a simulation of the JS32 Turbo-Prop, flying an I-5 certification using the PilotEdge Live ATC system. In this video, you can see that the aircraft systems are modeled to fairly high level of fidelity during the Engine Start Procedures. You can also see the level of live ATC modeling that happens on PilotEdge as well, in conjunction with the level of Instrument Procedures required to fly the I-5 profile in low to no visibility (in the clouds).

This video shows a simulation of the C182, flying an IMC departure with a simulated vacuum failure that affects the Attitude Indicator and the Heading Indicator. You can see the Procedures used during this systems failure (whether or not he used the correct Procedures is for you experts to decide) and you can clearly tell that some mental work needs to be accomplished to handle the situation correctly in order to land the aircraft safely.

My interest is in Procedures, not developing Muscle Memory and Kinesthetic Reflex. I'm interested in the knowledge necessary to accomplish these Procedural Tasks. I can read a book about such things, which makes perfectly good sense. But, why not put the brain into a semi-immersive environment where that which is read about can be experienced intellectually with a deeper memory hook for better recall when necessary?

If the Procedures are correct, what makes this form of exposure less effective than reading about doing such things in a book or manual? If one can get a head-start on such things before the real training begins and they are done correctly, how does that hurt the student's ability to perform similar tasks during real training? If the simulation can be done properly. How does that not benefit the student during their actual training?

Doing any complex physical task, first requires an intellectual framework that revolves around some kind of well understood process. If the student can slow down and focus on each meaningful component of a complex process until they understand where each part of the process fits inside the whole, then how does that hurt the student in the aggregate?

Driving IndyCar at 235mph through turn number #3, is very demanding, but according IndyCar drivers who do such things on a regular basis, it is also very much Muscle Memory related - similar to a MLB player who learns through Muscle Memory, how to hit a curve ball, or the right handed PGA Tour player who learns how to hit a High Draw into green with a left to right slope and a left side pin placement.

The act of making such a swing (in the moment) is pure Muscle Memory. There is no time to "think" about making such a move with the human body in the moment. The act of being able to make such a swing comes through a Process of repetition and practicing the correct swing mechanics.

Why can't the student practice the same correct procedures in a simulator that will be required of them during the actual training process and once they become a licensed pilot? Why would anyone toss such an opportunity into the trash can?

Thanks.

Seems like you already have all the answers. Why are you here again ?

 

[Positive Rate]

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

Bingo! That's the kind of thing I'm contemplating as well.

As far as your VFR - IFR scenario. The VFR pilot may be flying to or from a VOR but he still has ground references that he can check along the way to tell him where his is and how he is doing while the IFR pilot does not have those references at all.

I knew that part. I meant more like - what are the differences between the way a VFR only pilot would use something like the VOR (as just one example), as opposed to the way an IFR pilot would use the same instrument. Do they interpret the instrument's output any differently, because one is VFR and the other IFR?

I would be careful about using the simulator for IFR related stuff until you actually enter training for the rating.

Is your concern, that I might learn incorrect IFR procedures and therefore, have to unlearn those bad habits later - during the real training?

Then you can use it to recap what you are learning for your CFII.

That's also one of the purposes to my wanting to use the simulator. Not just before I begin flight training, but during the flight training process, as a tool to bridge the gap between what was taught in the current lesson and what was forgotten (by me) during that lesson in real-time.

Like you, I started taking lessons many years ago and had to stop. I took four (4) lessons, including one introductory flight (so) three full lessons total. That was more than 20 years ago, but I distinctly remember being too darned excited to remember much at all.

I knew what the homework assignment was, I knew what to read in the textbooks and I knew I had another lesson the next day. But, I did not have enough recall to review THAT day's lesson in my head. So, the next lesson was filled with a bunch of review from the previous lesson. That's not time or money well spent. In fact, it was a very inefficient way to learn.

This is where I think the sim can help strengthen memory and recall. If I can get my instructor to proactively direct me to the areas that he/she saw needed work during the current lesson, so that I could use that information between lessons to practice what was lacking, I could have a much more focused set of questions to have for the instructor the next day and most likely reduce the amount of "replay" of the last lesson,while increasing retention and recall of what was just learned.

I would think this to be one of the most important ways in which to use such technology. Bridging the gap between lessons on those things that did not set-up clearly in the brain DURING the lesson - with the instructors guidance.

If you try to use it to get ahead of things you my end up with the CFII having to break some bad habits thus costing you money along the way.

That's what I thought you might have meant.

I'm talking about an instructor guided pre-training simulation experience. I can only think of a few more good reasons to have an aviation forum such as this. Heck, you guys have a ton of instructors on this site.

I don't need to have a formal lesson about how to use the HSI right now (as just one example of many). I can read about the HSI in a book and I can stretch my brain to the limit trying to "visualize in my mind" how it would work. Or, I can read about how the HSI works, go through some examples in a workbook (if that kind of thing applies), ask a question of someone 'in the know' about how the instrument should be properly used and then take-up one of the training aircraft in the simulator and apply what I've studied and been guided on.

I can video the short local flight, show how I used the HSI, post the video here and then take critique from those in the know (instructors and non-instructing licensed pilots with good flight experience). At that point, everyone looking at the video would know whether a "bad habit" was being put to use, or whether I used good conventional skills to get the job done.

This is just one way of many ways I can see going about this. The net/net result? When I begin flight training, I start with fundamental orientation about how to use the HSI. I'm going to read books before the flight training begins anyway.

Why not simply take what I learn in the texts, get some additional guidance from knowledgeable pilots and then simply try to apply the information? It is not flight instruction - it is simply applying what you know, getting some feedback (critique) and then making corrections until there is a consensus that the procedure is being done correctly.

Anyway, thanks for your input. You've remained on topic and touched upon some things that I had been contemplating previously, no doubt.

Much appreciated.

 

[Positive Rate]

Dude, I'm the product lead for multiple simulation products. We use them for downstream development, procedures development, training, integration, even proof of concept for modification of the systems they are simulating.

I've been developing algorithms expressly for the purpose of predictive modeling for over 20 years. I doubt that I need a lecture on simulations and/or their physical limitations. I wear all the hats in my firm, including CEO.

I am not talking about trying to obtain a physical experience with a desktop simulator that is on par with full motion simulation. The simulation type isn't the point when it comes to Procedure. If the human brain receives enough detailed input from the environment, it won't care that the experience is simulated - it will simply bank that input as memory that it will draw upon when necessary in the future - real, simulated or imagined.

As product lead, were you required to study the neurological effects of contextually immersive environments requiring procedural actions in real-time, during the execution of mission critical tasks? What's real? What's imagined? Does the brain care, or does it lay down neural networks and synaptic pathways regardless of whether or not you are truly moving at 350kts, some 27,000 feet above the ground?

Your brain does not know and does not care about speed and elevation. But, it does know something about dumping mass quantities of adrenaline into your system, because you fear making a mistake at 350kts and 27,000 feet above the ground. Those kinds of memories are chemically charged - make no mistake about it. And, because of that, they are stored inside your brain differently than other types of memories - sometimes, to the point of autonomic response. And, if that response is wrong for the circumstances - look out below.

You seem to "know" that simulation technology is the answer.

No one is telling you anything of the sort.

It does not sound to me as if you read one word of what I've written thus far. That's not my fault and I cannot be held accountable for your misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I've stated the premise in the OP and re-stated it several times subsequently and you still come at me with off-topic reply.

Simulators failing to being the holy grail is not the underlying premise. The word "Orientation" was used multiple times now and the phrase, "Orientation to Procedures" was used several times subsequently. That should be a hint.

This is not about Learning to Fly with your Desktop 101. This is about an "Orientation to Procedures" using a Desktop Flight Simulator. I really don't know how to make it more plain vanilla than that.

The absolute first thing you need to learn about flying is that it is a physical skill, and is NOT like learning a mental task.

Try to follow this cookie trail:

- Thought (idea)
- Emotion (desire)
- Action (engagement)

Name a single physical action you can take as a human being without first having a thought, that does not involved the body's ANS. You blink without thought, that's your ANS at work. You don't turn the Fuel Selector Valve to the dry tank without any thought, as that would be unpredictable conscious behavior and potentially hazardous, unless your aircraft has a really nice L/Dmax, plenty of altitude to exchange for airspeed and more safe landing opportunities than Michael Jordan, has Championship Rings.

Everything begins in mind. One way or another. Physical skills sets (learned) are most definitely the direct result of ingrained thoughts and thought patterns leading ultimately to repetitive action(s), by way of the desire to take action.

I'm not here to argue neuroscience with you (been there, done that). I'm simply saying that it seems to me to be a huge wasted opportunity (given the technology at hand) to not use a flight simulator with sufficient systems fidelity, for the purpose of initial Orientation to certain modeled Procedures.

Did you watch any portion of the two videos I just posted? Can you comment on why either of those videos would make a lousy environment for the purpose of initial Orientation to Procedures?

What I see in those two videos is a tool that might be used to Introduce the future pilot to that which he/she will need to learn in much faster pace environment, where the fear of making mistakes will often times reduce the net effect of the instruction given in real-time.

I don't care how many stalls you go through on the simulator, you're not going to have the slightest clue how cool you are until you dip a wing in a real aircraft for the first time.

I'm not talking about Stalls and Cool. Stalls are kinesthetic. This thread started out saying that it was not interested in the full kinesthetic experience, nor was it attempting to replicate the same using a desktop simulator.

One can learn to stall and recover and aircraft nearly overnight - I did. My very last lesson some 20 years ago was practicing stalls with my instructor. They were easy. There was no loss of cool. Just put the nose down, add power and wait for the airspeed to climb above the stall speed before pulling out. That's what I was taught and it took minutes to teach such a lesson. I don't need a simulator for that in a Cessna 172.

But, I do need to know how to intercept a Radial while talking to ATC, avoiding other traffic and not forgetting to check my VOR in the process. I do need to practice the difference being on the "To" side and the "From" side of the Station, relative to a particular "Bearing" and/or "Radial." I mean, sure - I can write about some of this stuff after reading it in a book, but I need practice doing it and that is where such technology can assist - I would think.

Why do I need to spend unnecessarily large amounts of time going over this with my instructor in the aircraft, when I could already nail down the fundamentals of tracking a VOR, while my instructors spends a higher level of quality time with me on the finer details and nuances of the same? I should not be fumbling for the OBS when my instructor tells me to do something that requires Memory Work. Yet, that is exactly what I will be wasting time doing, if I do not have exposure to the OBS and how to properly use it to accomplish a specific task.

I'm talking about Orientation to Procedures and Memory Work, here. I'm not talking about becoming Charles Lindbergh on a Desktop with a Mouse. However, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you had the opportunity to ask both Lindbergh and Earhart, whether or not they would have liked to have had the opportunity to practice certain procedures related to their respective missions before they flew them, that neither of them would have refused the offer.

I don't understand the needless push back I'm getting on this. I really don't. It makes no sense not to use this stuff, if I can be done correctly.

Simulation can be used as an adjunct to airborne training for certain very limited tasks, but it simply is not a substitute for primary training.

Oh, come on, "Dude." You can't be serious. If you are going to post in this thread, I'd appreciate you taking the time to at least read what you are replying to.

Replacing primary flight training? Huh? Where? Where has that been stipulated by anyone in this thread as the motive for wanting to use a flight simulator?

I said: "Preempting" some of the fear typically associated with learning new subjects in a fast pace environment, where the emphasis is not really on knowledge transfer, but on repetition. I stipulated that concept at the very beginning. Let's face it, if I've got a good fundamental exposure on the aircraft systems (as just one example of many different types of exposure) and how they work before starting flight training, how much more prepared will I be after flight training begins - if I have the proper Orientation through good simulation habits?

It can be done entirely with no simulation without significant loss of benefit and only marginal loss in cost. The FAA only allows 5 hours simulator time in primary training, and virtually everything you do on it will need to be repeated for real. And I think you'll find it's useless once you fly a real airplane.

Let me understand this. Waiting until the day that "VOR Introduction in The Cockpit" comes, is better than obtaining good guidance on how the VOR works now and simulating its use prior to the first "real" day of exposure in-flight?

If that is true, then I am completely in the dark, here. If that is the absolute truth - then I am willing to accept that premise.

You say you're "asking questions," but there sure are a lot of answers in there. Wrong ones that you're clinging to. And I get the distinct impression you have something to sell.

Can you help me out and tell me what I'm selling, so that I will know what you seem to know about my intentions?

My questions in this thread are about Procedures, not about whether or not I'll be using a flight simulator prior to flight training. I've already made that decision because I can already see the potential benefit for having done so.

Now, I could say that you are selling more Instructor Time by turning potential student pilots away from a tool that might help them reduce their overall training time, but that would not be very fair to you - would it?

Take the student who knows before hand how to control their training aircraft using the correct Pitch, Power and Trim settings - exactly how far ahead of the curve will that student be relative to the student who cannot get their head around the concept of using Pitch to control Speed at a fixed Power setting, and who finds most of their Mental Cycles being eaten up during that lesson with "thoughts" about how to do it correctly, instead of just doing it when the instructor asks them to?

Which student came prepared for that lesson? The one who merely read about controlling their aircraft in a book, or the one who read about it in a book and then practiced doing it in the simulator until they understood the Procedure at a level that registers with the brain, before meeting up with their Instructor - who by the way, helped them to understand the need for proper Pitch, Power and Trim settings?

This does not have to be a war. Why play it that way. There is nothing wrong with a sharp student wanting to develop an edge on learning a subject - no matter what that subject might be.

 

[Positive Rate]

Seems like you already have all the answers. Why are you here again ?

The videos don't give the answers, but the answers to the videos gives me questions about whether or not this was the right right forum for such a discussion/concept.

The videos were posted to demonstrate the potential level of fidelity available with the right simulator set-up and as a measuring rod for this forum to critique the use of such a tool and its appropriateness for the task ahead that I have outlined.

But, you know what - just forget it. This is going nowhere faster than the Goodyear Blimp in a 50kt headwind.

As Gilda Radner, used to say: "Never mind."

Enjoy the rest of your forum.

 

[bqmassey]

But, you know what - just forget it. This is going nowhere faster than the Goodyear Blimp in a 50kt headwind.

Incorrect, it will be going backwards, and quite quickly if at idle.

 

[MAKG1]

I am not talking about trying to obtain a physical experience with a desktop simulator that is on par with full motion simulation. The simulation type isn't the point when it comes to Procedure. If the human brain receives enough detailed input from the environment, it won't care that the experience is simulated - it will simply bank that input as memory that it will draw upon when necessary in the future - real, simulated or imagined.

Here's mistake #1 in that post. You ARE talking about obtaining a physical experience. And you can't get enough input from the environment -- even with full motion. You just don't understand that. You're using a model of learning that works reasonably for academic understanding, but fails completely for a physical task. As an example, there is an iPhone app called "iBone." It is a pretty good simulation of a trombone. I challenge you to play Rochut's Etude #1 (which is pretty easy, and something almost every beginning trombonist plays at some point) on a real trombone after learning from that, plus whatever books you want. Good luck.

There isn't much to procedures aside from using checklists and workflows. It's a very small part of learning to fly.

One hat you clearly don't wear is that of a student. You've had a couple of lessons and some irrelevant algorithms experience, and you think you know it all. You DON'T. You're a rank beginner. And you won't learn until you figure that out.

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

 

[MAKG1]

Take the student who knows before hand how to control their training aircraft using the correct Pitch, Power and Trim settings - exactly how far ahead of the curve will that student be relative to the student who cannot get their head around the concept of using Pitch to control Speed at a fixed Power setting, and who finds most of their Mental Cycles being eaten up during that lesson with "thoughts" about how to do it correctly, instead of just doing it when the instructor asks them to?

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.

A Cessna 172 loaded to max with a full forward CG behaves quite differently from one 500 lb under gross with a middle-of-the-road CG (and that's going to happen when flying solo near fuel reserve).

And can you tell us the pitch, power and trim settings for the flare in standard conditions at sea level? Feel free to look it up or try it on your simulator. Heck, can you tell us the trim settings for ANYTHING?

Flying VFR is NOT a bunch of procedures. There are procedures involved, but focusing on them is thoroughly missing the point. It will NOT make you a better pilot. Quite the opposite.

 

[Henning]

Take the student who knows before hand how to control their training aircraft using the correct Pitch, Power and Trim settings - exactly how far ahead of the curve will that student be relative to the student who cannot get their head around the concept of using Pitch to control Speed at a fixed Power setting, and who finds most of their Mental Cycles being eaten up during that lesson with "thoughts" about how to do it correctly, instead of just doing it when the instructor asks them to?

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.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

 

[JHW]

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.

 

[Henning]

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.

Exactly, I operate a lot of different equipment, airplanes are nowhere near the top of the difficulty list. Understanding and explaining how an airplane works is easier than understanding and explaining how an automatic transmission works. Planes are dirt simple.