Instrument Training - Is Simulator Needed?

WDD

WDD

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
5,339
Location
Atlanta / KRYY
Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
Hello I did a search but didn't find an exact answer.

Looking at different schools / clubs to do instrument training.

One is a regular flight school - more expensive for tach hour and CFII costs, but has a simulator.

The other option is a local flight club with an independent CFII. Cost per plane hour and CFII is much less, but no simulator (it's a club - there isn't even a permanent place to meet. I guess we'd be doing ground work in the FBO lounge.)

Is use of a simulator a needed part of instrument training?
 
No.

A simulator has definite advantages in certain parts of the training process, but is by no means necessary.
 
I flew 1.0 in a Redbird because I wanted to see what it was like. If the weather was better that day I would have flown a real airplane, as planned.

Definitely not necessary to fly a sim if you don't want to.
 
The advantage of using a simulator is that you can practice procedures and learn navigation skills without the distractions and interruptions that occur during a training flight. To take advantage of the benefits of simulator training, you need to have a CFI who knows how to best use the simulator and for what training goals it is most appropriate. In other words, a simulator lesson should not be the same lesson that would have otherwise been taught in the airplane.

Used properly, a simulator will have to comfortable each procedure or navigation task before you perform that task in the airplane. An airplane is not the best environment to learn something new, or practice something that you don't yet fully understand. Do that on the ground using a simulator, an emulator for the navigation radios in your airplane, or even the web-based navigation simulators such as http://www.luizmonteiro.com/.

I would not rent and fly from a school, especially one that is more expensive, just because they have a simulator. Instead, see if your CFI can get 'checked out' to teach you in that school's simulator then fly with him at the local club.
 
Larry in TN said:
I would not rent and fly from a school, especially one that is more expensive, just because they have a simulator.
Click to expand...

I think this sums up what you and the others are suggesting. Thanks !
 
I did exactly 0.0 hours in a sim during my instrument training. :)
 
Larry in TN said:
see if your CFI can get 'checked out' to teach you in that school's simulator then fly with him at the local club.
Click to expand...
I had one sim lesson towards my instrument rating...I was having trouble remembering to start the time on timed approaches, so my instructor sent me to a nearby airport to do an hour with one of their instructors in the sim just to get some rapid-fire practice.

a different instructor occasionally is ok if they won’t allow your club instructor to use their sim...you just have to be clear about what you want when you get there.
 
Dave Arata said:
I did exactly 0.0 hours in a sim during my instrument training.
Click to expand...

Same. Passed the practical exam with just over 40 hours sim/actual. Never thought I needed any time in the sim. But everybody is different. Probably best to work with your CFII on a plan. If it involves a sim, try it out. If it doesn't work out, I'd let your CFII know and alter the plan.
 
Far more important to find a good CFII than find a simulator.

If you are good with avionics and automation I find sims have less value than the people that are slower to pick up the TAA systems.
 
You don’t need to use a simulator however it does have its benefits. I had trouble visualizing holding patterns so instead of wasting a couple hundred dollars in the plane, we just went in the Redbird and banged out a bunch of holding patterns.
 
I did exactly 20.0 hrs in the Sim, as was allowed for the AATD.

I love it, for what it's good for.

You can set yourself up 5 or 10 miles outside the approach fix, and fly the approach.

No need to miss unless you want to practice the missed procedure.

Then you can set yourself up again, same or different approach.

In 1.0 hrs, you can have easily flown four approaches, maybe more.

Can't do that in a real airplane, especially if the practice approaches are at an airport away from where you begin.
 
WDD said:
Is use of a simulator a needed part of instrument training?
Click to expand...
Is it "needed" ? Absolutely not. Can it be very helpful depending on the person and be a budget friendly option... for sure!

Depends on the person. If you're comfortable IMC and just need to work on process and flows, etc., then a sim can be great way to get the approaches in, get your flows down, and save a few bucks while doing it. You also cut a lot of time out from the taxi, climb, etc., nonsense.. you can just go straight to the approaches and holds

**however, If you find the experience of actually being properly in the clouds "unsettling" then a sim, or foggles for that matter, won't replicate that
 
Dave Arata said:
I did exactly 0.0 hours in a sim during my instrument training. :)
Click to expand...

So did Jimmy Doolittle. ;)

In a good simulator you can practice things you would be unlikely to try in the airplane.
I've done IFR approaches to minimums in mountain airports, single engine failures on climb out of a valley with a low level return to the airport in IMC, icing up over water at night, that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
The oft quoted benefits of the sims are:
1) saves money since the sim rental is much less than the plane rental
2) you can hit "pause" anytime you're behind, have a question, or want to start over
3) and what Rgbeard said about finishing one approach and then be ready for the next with a few button clicks instead of flying to the next position

However, sometimes the time after the approach while you're going to the next one is useful to let George do the work, relax, and be ready to shoot the next one. Arguably you could do that in a sim too.
Even the best GA ones are still like playing a video game vs actually flying.

I'm sure the cool commercial type sims are much more real, but those cost MUCH more than the actual planes we fly.
 
A good simulator can help expedite some things and also allows practicing some emergencies that would be too risky in the real aircraft.

Having said that, before I mandate the use of simulators for instrument training, I would make meaningful exposure to actual IMC a training requirement.

- Martin
 
jordane93 said:
I had trouble visualizing holding patterns so instead of wasting a couple hundred dollars in the plane, we just went in the Redbird and banged out a bunch of holding patterns.
Click to expand...
And when the student gets confused you don't have to continue through the procedure still being confused, with the CFII leading you through it, like you would in the airplane. You can pause the sim, work through the confusion, then continue forward with a better understanding of what you are doing.

One thing I'd avoid, in a G.A. simulator, is trying to treat it like an actual flight. G.A. simulators don't match your G.A. training airplane like the expensive jet simulators do. Use the sim's capabilities to skip all the time-wasting things that must be done in an airplane but can be skipped right over in the sim.
 
I did 10 in a sim, but they were only charging 20 bucks an hour vs the 100 or whatever for the Warrior. And I was doing IR training in March, which equals lots of icy IMC here in MI.
(though it wasn't a true sim but a FTD)
 
EdFred said:
I did 10 in a sim, but they were only charging 20 bucks an hour vs the 100 or whatever for the Warrior. And I was doing IR training in March, which equals lots of icy IMC here in MI.
(though it wasn't a true sim but a FTD)
Click to expand...
Most devices that are called simulators are actually Flight Training Devices.
 
Larry in TN said:
One thing I'd avoid, in a G.A. simulator, is trying to treat it like an actual flight. G.A. simulators don't match your G.A. training airplane like the expensive jet simulators do. Use the sim's capabilities to skip all the time-wasting things that must be done in an airplane but can be skipped right over in the sim.
Click to expand...
A million times yes! So true! It really does not replicate the real world environment and all the psych stress that goes with it

Larry in TN said:
And when the student gets confused you don't have to continue through the procedure still being confused, with the CFII leading you through it, like you would in the airplane.
Click to expand...
I might be an outlier here but I think those experiences are actually valuable.. in the real world the plane doesn't pause or stop.. it keeps traveling, fast. If you plan to do real IMC flying you are eventually going to get caught in a situation where you are workload saturated. You're in the clouds, set up for the approach, then you get vectored off for traffic reasons and have to resequence.. all of the sudden your "vectors to final" that you direct enter-enter'd is missing half the fixes and you go from being 10 steps ahead of the plane to all of a sudden behind the plane. Having had a few experiences where you're "mentally lost" can be a good way, imho, to know how to handle yourself when that happens. Wings level, flying straight. Ask for a vector and a climb. Stabilize. Reload the approach, brief the plate again. Sometimes if you get "out of control" a few times it can help you train yourself how to get back in control


I had an experience last summer where my planned destination, and the alternate, got hit with thunderstorms. I maybe *could* have squeezed it in to the alternate (Bakersfield) but it wasn't a risk I wanted to take. VNY was under a solid and thick cloud layer but it was behind me in otherwise stable weather with no storms activity. Decided to divert there for the night (it was around sunset). Had myself prepped for the ILS, in the clouds, and (this was my fault on planning) I come to find out from the controller that the ILS is out and the only choice I have is the VOR approach. Damn. Time to pause, re-evaluate, load everything back up, and continue on. Luckily the Cirrus has a capable autopilot but I was otherwise alone, just my non pilot girlfriend and a non pilot friend in the back. Having had a few of the experiences during training of "getting behind" was very helpful when it happens in real life in balancing a workload or managing a sudden change in plans.
 
I did all my training in my airplane. If I had had access to a sim, it might have been useful for becoming more rapidly acquainted with instrument procedure operations, but to be honest, training in actual IMC was far more valuable in terms of holistic in-flight decision making about enroute flight management, procedures, and weather. There was no shortage of procedures in my 40 hours. I think we flew approaches to almost every airport within 100+ nm of home base, just to keep it fresh.
 
Tantalum said:
I might be an outlier here but I think those experiences are actually valuable.
Click to expand...
It's not helpful when you're trying to learn something new like holds or a DME arc. Use the sim to have a solid foundation in those, and other, procedures and tasks then go to the airplane and do them in the real world with all the real world distractions and interruptions.

When I was teach holds, about ten years ago, I'd start out with the online navigation simulators I linked to above. There you're not even having to "fly" an airplane while practicing the theory of hold entries and wind correction. Once those skills are solid, use a sim, or use an airplane. An airplane is a terrible place to try to learn something complex like that.
 
WDD said:
Hello I did a search but didn't find an exact answer.

Looking at different schools / clubs to do instrument training.

One is a regular flight school - more expensive for tach hour and CFII costs, but has a simulator.

The other option is a local flight club with an independent CFII. Cost per plane hour and CFII is much less, but no simulator (it's a club - there isn't even a permanent place to meet. I guess we'd be doing ground work in the FBO lounge.)

Is use of a simulator a needed part of instrument training?
Click to expand...
I built my own (see my avatar) and used PilotEdge.net extensively during my instrument training. Saved me lots of $$ in training and is an amazing proficiency tool.
 
labbadabba said:
I built my own (see my avatar) and used PilotEdge.net extensively during my instrument training. Saved me lots of $$ in training and is an amazing proficiency tool.
Click to expand...
Wow. Do you have a web site or thread on what you did - how someone else would build ?
 
I did my instrument training with ATC (ten day course with two days off for good behavior in my case). After an initial hour or so in the simulator learning their Command-effect (or whatever they call it) system and one day messing around learning holds, we decided to put the old ticket ATC 610 in the box and do everything in my plane.

My neighbor who's now working on her instructor ratings has a doctorate from Harvard in computer simulation and she's put together a bunch of simulators in her hangar. She's musing with getting one approved for instruction.
 
A program of instruction I taught for six years included three weeks in a damn fine simulator and five flights in the aircraft.

Without the simulator, it would have been about 20 flights and ain't nobody got time fo dat.
 
Last edited:
A lot of pilots got their IR with time on a ATC510 or ATC610 the 510 seem to be more user friendly as it just used tapes and you could do the flight by yourself. As a CFII i used the 510 and 610 for years the 610 with plotter was a great device at the time. The new simulators are great and light years ahead of the old 510 and 610, do you need them, No. Will it help or save time probably depends on the person using it and the CFII, if the instructor is pro sim yes if not hopeless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top