Flight simulator

[ChrisK]

You should network connect and fly multiplayer!




Sent from my iPhone using An APP that doesn't pay me to advertise for them.

I have pilotedge but haven't done anything with it yet beyond radio check and ctaf calls.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Please ask him to provide reputable proof to you so that you can distribute it more widely.

I've seen the same thing with ab into students who "played" flight sim solo.

Proof, well I never thought of video taping them attempting to fly and saying they logged so many hours in fsx before starting training.

I would imagine anyone with common sense could extrapolate why "teaching" yourself in flight sim at a early stage could turn out poorly.

 

[wabower]

Proof? Of what? That what he's seen is the same as what every other CFI who's observed such students has seen?

Why do those same instructors advise that use of desk-top sims is very valuable for IFR training?

Please ask him to provide reputable proof to you so that you can distribute it more widely.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

There is a saying in the Army that in the heat of battle your brains melt and flow out of your ears, so we train, train, train or practice, practice, practice.

I remember as a new student (first 5 hrs) I would get overwhelmed by all the instruments and my search to find and understand each was longer than it should. Between lessons, I found using Microsoft Flight Sim which at the time was free with most computers, really helped me to establish a comfort zone with the layout and cockpit. I even put up the poster on my desk so I could look at it as often as possible increasing my intimacy with it.

I then had a bit of a problem with over controlling and 1-2 hrs of playing with the flight sim game resolved that.

I never had the patience to use the flight lessons or IFR lessons in some sims but it obviously works or you wouldn't have 15 year old kids stealing airplanes and joy riding with them and surviving to tell the story.

An article I read on AOPA or aviation consumer (I forget which one) some time back talked about the need for pilots to stay proficient flying less than the average 34 hrs a year of a non commercial pilot. One of the techniques was to use imagery sitting at home or your office and go through your start up procedures and taxi and take off and fly the pattern. The theory was that this was extremely helpful at keeping your proficiency between flying. If this is the case, then doing the same thing with a game sim could only help with the accuracy of the exercise. I do not play sims much but I might get on one once or twice a year and I feel they help me greatly.

I think it would be a greatly enhanced experience if I could get a cfii to work with me on it. Most CFII's around here do not want to mess with sims legal or otherwise.

So if the op is wanting to invest $100 for a flight control and X sim, I'd say it is impossible not to reep benefits beyond the expense. However if the op is talking about investing $3999 for a legal sim, I'd say spend that money directly on flight training.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Proof? Of what? That what he's seen is the same as what every other CFI who's observed such students has seen?

Since some students and CFIs have reported that using home simulators appear to have helped, and there are related formal studies (links previously noted) that fail to note any of the claimed negative consequences, please excuse me if I fail to be convinced by a handful of personal anecdotes.

Why do those same instructors advise that use of desk-top sims is very valuable for IFR training?

They don't want to look like complete arses?

 

[MAKG1]

(A) Only students. Very few if any CFIs. Very telling, that.

(B) A negative study is not a positive study of the inverse. There are quite a number of reasons a study might fail to find an effect, aside from the conclusion you desire.

The real answer to that question is that the instructors are trying to provide honest information, rather than advocacy.

At least one of the advocates in this thread is in the business of selling simulation equipment.

If the OP wants to invest $300 (not $100) in simulation equipment, he should do so because he wants to. That's barely two hours of instruction, including the aircraft, so it's not very significant in terms of initial cost. And it's fun. You can't do pattern work in a sim without a much more capable sim than you can get for $300. You have to be able to look 45 deg behind you on either side. During primary training -- you tell me -- what do you spend the most time on?

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Proof? Of what? That what he's seen is the same as what every other CFI who's observed such students has seen?

Why do those same instructors advise that use of desk-top sims is very valuable for IFR training?

Because IFR is procedures, not like a PPL where it's more sick and rudder and eyeballs.

THAT SAID, it's only a good idea to get on the sim with a instructor FIRST, have the fundamentals of instrument built, then go "solo" with it (if that makes sense).

 

[Jim Logajan]

The real answer to that question is that the instructors are trying to provide honest information, rather than advocacy.

If a student completes in just over 40 hours what they might take 60 or more hours, that affects the CFI's income.

At least one of the advocates in this thread is in the business of selling simulation equipment.

One must be careful of selective application of that principle. You failed to apply it to the CFIs.

 

[MAKG1]

If a student completes in just over 40 hours what they might take 60 or more hours, that affects the CFI's income.



One must be careful of selective application of that principle. You failed to apply it to the CFIs.

And if those accusations were true, you can't explain the instrument training statements.

In fact, many CFIIs encourage use of simulation, for the purposes of developing an instrument scan and practicing instrument procedures.

Also, follow the money. CFIs can't make a very good living instructing, unless they are part timers and have a good day job. Instructors that routinely give self-serving advice quickly get a reputation for that. Equipment salespeople typically only do a sale once, not 40+ times.

 

[wabower]

Redbird builds and sells sim equipment at various levels of cost and sophistication including a home-use model. The company also operates a flight school that aggressively integrates sim and in-airplane sessions and has trained many hundreds of students while employing the concept.

Why don't you go to Austin and get a first-hand look at how they do it and also obtain their answers as to how student training times are--or aren't--impacted by use of the sims?

Since some students and CFIs have reported that using home simulators appear to have helped, and there are related formal studies (links previously noted) that fail to note any of the claimed negative consequences, please excuse me if I fail to be convinced by a handful of personal anecdotes.



They don't want to look like complete arses?

 

[MAKG1]

Redbird is in the midst of a sanctioned experiment on the effectiveness of their top-of-the-line "full motion" simulators for primary flight training. Characterizing that as any sort of conclusion, or as applying to desktop simulators, is very, very wrong.

If you need to go to Austin to get the answer, it isn't an answer to any question about what's possible at home.

 

[wabower]

Have you done it? If not, how would you propose that an interested prospect conduct a side-by-side real-time comparison between their home-use model and models designed for school use?

Redbird is in the midst of a sanctioned experiment on the effectiveness of their top-of-the-line "full motion" simulators for primary flight training. Characterizing that as any sort of conclusion, or as applying to desktop simulators, is very, very wrong.

If you need to go to Austin to get the answer, it isn't an answer to any question about what's possible at home.