Red Bird simulator

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador
I am a PPL looking to get my IR. There is a Red Bird simulator not too far from me. Has anyone used these for IR training?
Is it worth the $100hr? The simulator instructor claims 3X quicker than traditional instruction. As a certified simulator, apparently I can log up to 20 hrs. At a $100/hr. it is not much cheaper than getting instruction in my own plane(~$110) Additionally, I have an IR friend who is willing to safety pilot/coach, which just I cannot log obviously, but it only costs me gas for the plane.

I know that this is a bit of a ramble but I am trying to develop an efficient approach to my IR training, making the most of my resources.

Thoughts?
 
$100/hr? You may as well just go in the plane. My school has a Red Bird and I found it really helpful for nailing procedures. I think I logged 15 hours in it. I was having trouble with holding patterns so we decided to use the sim and it was really helpful because my CFI could pause, move, and restart whenever he wanted or whenever he felt necessary.
 
When properly used by a good instructor to supplement flight training, a flight simulation device can help significantly reduce the amount of aircraft time needed to complete IR training. The amount of time which can be credited towards the required 40 hours of total instrument time varies depending on the type of device (FTD vs ATD) and the certification of the training provider (Part 142 vs anything else), so it's hard to say whether you can actually credit 20 hours in that device without knowing more. However, when we used an FTD, PIC averaged about 17 hours of sim time and 23 hours of aircraft time in a 10-day IR course. We no longer use an FTD, and can only credit 10 hours with the ATD we now use, but it still cuts the total aircraft time considerably.

Whether your training will go "3X quicker than traditional instruction" with that Rebird device is another story. Even though that claim is rather vague, it's hard to believe one could cut IR training time by 75% through the use of a sim. I'd be interested to hear more specifics about what that instructor is claiming, but it doesn't sound very credible on its face.
 
any PCATD can help with IFR procedures, it doesn't have to be the $100 redbird..
 
That $100 is very high for an AATD. The Redbird AATD's here are $55, making it a viable alternative for training.

For that price, I would get my butt in the airplane.

Having said that, the statistics on the Redbird simulation advantages in both VFR and IFR training are very accurate & impressive, based on scale-able data from years of heavy studies and trials.
 
Last edited:
As a price check our local BAT-2 Cat III simulator with a CFI-I runs $95 per hour. I logged 10 hours on it at the beginning of my IFR training. Seems to help to understand the approaches and holds.

Jim
 
$100/hr is a lot for something that doesn't burn any fuel, but then these are expensive systems and the owner needs to recover the cost of buying it.

As another price check, there is a BATD (Basic Aviation Training Device) in the area that runs ~$60 including instructor. It is not nearly as nice as the Redbird, but it can do most of the same stuff (though it can only count for 10 hours).

When used by a good instructor, a simulator can be an excellent training tool. I don't know about the 3x faster claim. I do think an hour in the simulator can cover more than an hour in the plane.

Before you go expecting to credit 20 hours towards your instrument rating, you should look into exactly what type of device this is. The rules for AATDs (Advanced Aviation Training Devices) are apparently changing. Some AATD devices are currently able to credit 20 hours. As I understand it, that will soon change to no more than 10 hours, possibly less. See: www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67397
 
Archammer said:
That $100 is very high for an AATD. The Redbird AATD's here are $55, making it a viable alternative for training.

For that price, I would get my butt in the airplane.

Having said that, the statistics on the Redbird simulation advantages in both VFR and IFR training are very accurate & impressive, based on scale-able data from years of heavy studies and trials.
Click to expand...


Yup

I've trained, and been given training in a redbird. Nice tool, but for 100 bucks a hour, no way on earth!! They are normally like half that.

The sim is a GREAT tool for IR training, no doubt, but 3 times faster, sounds like someone just wants the higher profit margin.
 
I used a PCATD for $18/hr then add your instructor (35 or 40), for 10 hours this was a good value. Now it is gone and the Redbird is $75/hr with a $50 instructor!!!!
 
For instrument training, the AATD has some advantages that make it useful for part of your training: 1) reduced pre-flight, 2) no need to fly back home and re-hangar/refuel. You just fire it up, set your radios, and go fly the approach. When you are done, you just turn it off.
 
It is true that you can achieve more in an hour in the sim than you can with an airplane.

I minimized the cost of my training by making use of the rule that states you only need 15 hours of instrument flight instruction from the block of 40.

So, I did 15 with an instructor, the other 25 were with safety pilots. This was with the instructor's blessing.

The RB has an advantage over many sims because it has such a wide field of view, meaning you can actually practice pattern work. However, since the vast majority of IFR training is geared towards logging actual or simulated instrument time, the ability to look around just isn't that important.

Unless the sim has ATC capability, you're going to be missing out on a fairly important part of flying IFR, which is the interaction with ATC. On that basis, costs being equal, I'd prefer to use the airplane and get in the system (even as a VFR aircraft practicing approaches with safety pilot).
 
I absolutely hated the Red Bird the first time I got in it for IR training and swore I would never use it again. Then, there was a period of time that I couldn't get an airplane at a time that I needed, so I opted to give the Red Bird a second chance. I don't know what was different, but I loved it and still do. As some people have pointed out, you just turn it off when you're done. No need to fly back and taxi.

I do agree that $100 is high. Most I have seen are between $50 and $60.
 
I just finished up my instrument rating a couple months ago, and used a redbird for 15 hours. If the price difference is that small, I would recommend doing it in the airplane and if you have issues with any procedures go to the redbird. The biggest advantage I experienced with the redbird is that when I was getting confused or lost, i could hit the PAUSE button talk over with my instructor right then and there what happened and how to correct. followed by a click of a button to reset and start the approach/hold/whatever all over again.
 
I got to sit in the full motion red bird for a short time. Frankly I was *NOT* impressed. The G1000 was goofy and nothing like the real thing and hence counter productive for training. The flight regimes seem to have been lifted straight from MSFS.

I don't think the "full motion" does anything for instrument training anyhow. The 141 school I did my primary training had one of those old Linc blue things with and it was more of a novelty that it moved.

Even the rather ugly and antique ATC610 that the PIC guy used (I hear they switched to Redbird, perhaps C'Ron can elaborate more on that) coupled with my GNS480 simulator running on an adjacent PC was good for practicing the "button mashing" as my southern instructor would put it.
 
Talking simulators in general for IFR training, I logged 10 hours towards my IFR and pretty much hated it. Only value I had was learning procedure turns and holds because as mentioned, you can hit the pause button and discuss. (REALLY need to figure out how to install one of those in my plane!).

A few hours may be valuable for learning procedures, but the flying of the approaches and glideslopes were virtually useless to me compared to actual flying. Nothing can replace the but in an actual seat.

That was my experience anyway.
 
Not all sims are created equal. If you can utilize a sim that runs on X-Plane and has decent hardware so the frame rate is smooth and fluid, then I think the IFR training experience is more than decent.

I shoot approaches in a non-certified sim at home. The mindset and techniques are no different than the real airplane. The stick forces are different, but I really don't care...I already have my muscle memory for the airplane.

PFC and FlyThisSim make training devices that are based on X-Plane. I would recommend them in a heartbeat.

Nearly every other sim I've flown that was MSFS or P3D based wasn't configured very well and had distractingly bad flight models. Throw in jerky gauge movement and it was pretty distracting.
 
coma24 said:
Not all sims are created equal. If you can utilize a sim that runs on X-Plane and has decent hardware so the frame rate is smooth and fluid, then I think the IFR training experience is more than decent.

I shoot approaches in a non-certified sim at home. The mindset and techniques are no different than the real airplane. The stick forces are different, but I really don't care...I already have my muscle memory for the airplane.

PFC and FlyThisSim make training devices that are based on X-Plane. I would recommend them in a heartbeat.

Nearly every other sim I've flown that was MSFS or P3D based wasn't configured very well and had distractingly bad flight models. Throw in jerky gauge movement and it was pretty distracting.
Click to expand...
The Red Bird sim is a little different. It can actually be used for flight training. It's nothing like a home built arm chair pilot set up
 
I've had a lot of trouble with X-Plane the times I've tried it. It doesn't seem to me to fly at all like a real airplane.
 
I use the FlyThisSim stuff for my home PC, and if I were looking for a certified system I'd buy their TouchTrainer before a Redbird. But if you know how the real G1000 behaves and can ignore the Redbird's broken stuff it's fine for currency. Of course, the tabletop Redbird I have access to is $50/hr.
 
Last edited:
I used the Redbird for the beginning of my instrument training. It is great for learning the basics of holds and approaches as well as getting your scan on point. You can cut out all the takeoff and enroute time. The controls are extremely sensitive, so controlling it is a task in itself, but makes real flying that much easier. I hope that $100/hr includes instruction.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1575938 said:
As another price check, there is a BATD (Basic Aviation Training Device) in the area that runs ~$60 including instructor.
Click to expand...
They must not be paying the instructor very much.

Before you go expecting to credit 20 hours towards your instrument rating, you should look into exactly what type of device this is. The rules for AATDs (Advanced Aviation Training Devices) are apparently changing. Some AATD devices are currently able to credit 20 hours. As I understand it, that will soon change to no more than 10 hours, possibly less. See: www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67397
Click to expand...
Those 20-hour authorizations by Flight Standards directly contravened the regulations, and at the Chief Counsel's insistence, the Administrator is revoking them. They never should have been authorized more than 10 hours, and now they will be authorized only what the regulations allow. Only a full flight simulator or FTD will allow 20 hours towards the IR.
 
I've got 7.3 so far toward my IR in a 2014 Redbird FMX and I'm a big fan. I would have to think that the 3x quicker figure might be a bit exaggerated but I could definitely see some savings from the fact that you can take off into IMC and tool around while still in IMC, fly to minimums, and then reset and reposition yourself someplace out on the approach and do it all over again - obviously saving a ton of time. In my 7.3 Redbird hours, I've shot 15 approaches, most of which have been to minimums in pretty crappy conditions, some partial panel. I think that's an often overlooked area of real value that sims offer - the "let's see how I handle this approach to mins with a XYZ system failed". AKA, the stuff you don't want to experiment with as a new (or experienced) instrument rated pilot.

My feeling is that $100/hr with instructor isn't horrible for what you're getting - which is the ability to not waste time and gas and get straight into IMC, fly partial panel and other scenarios, and hone your skills in a setting that allows you to literally press the pause button and ask questions or debrief. If nothing else, you should try it out and make your own conclusion about the value of it as a training aid.
 
i honestly don't believe in simulators for light ga airplanes, specially at 100 dollars/ hr. I rather learn and log some good time flying the real airplane than the sim. it is just so different and non realistic. the price difference or savings will not make a lot of difference as you will have to fly the airplane and shoot real approaches in real weather to become proficient and safe. or if going for a career as a pilot you will have to log flight hours anyway so you might as well log them while flying. in addition, the 6hits in a sim to remain current is a far cry from enough to be a safe pilot.

people will say that its good for procedure, but then again nothing brats actaul flying to learn procedure.
 
cirrusmx said:
people will say that its good for procedure, but then again nothing brats actaul flying to learn procedure.
Click to expand...

I agree for stick and rudder stuff, but for things like IFR GPS button mashing and even some basic procedure stuff, cockpits in flight are terrible classrooms.
 
cirrusmx said:
i honestly don't believe in simulators for light ga airplanes, specially at 100 dollars/ hr. I rather learn and log some good time flying the real airplane than the sim. it is just so different and non realistic. the price difference or savings will not make a lot of difference as you will have to fly the airplane and shoot real approaches in real weather to become proficient and safe. or if going for a career as a pilot you will have to log flight hours anyway so you might as well log them while flying. in addition, the 6hits in a sim to remain current is a far cry from enough to be a safe pilot.

people will say that its good for procedure, but then again nothing brats actaul flying to learn procedure.
Click to expand...
But in the sim, you can pause, de brief, re position, and restArt whenever you want. If you want approaches, you don't need to ask, don't need to be vectored for 10 minutes, and if you make a mistake, you can not pause and talk about it. This is where simulators are worth it. You can practice approaches and holds in a far more timely manner than in the plane.
 
it is just so different and non realistic....you will have to fly the airplane and shoot real approaches in real weather to become proficient and safe.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more on that one. I stay legally current with my airplane, but I stay _proficient_ with my sim at home, and it's not even certified.
 
Ron Levy said:
\__[Ô]__/;1575938 said:
As another price check, there is a BATD (Basic Aviation Training Device) in the area that runs ~$60 including instructor.
Click to expand...
They must not be paying the instructor very much.
Click to expand...

Haven't used it, but my understanding is 15/hr for the BATD, 45/hr for the instructor. Not sure if they will let you use it to practice on your own without an instructor.
 
also keep in mind the red bird is running a very slightly tweaked version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the motion is more of a gimmick.

Heck get a yoke and rudder pedals of Craig's list, buy flight sim X for $20, or download it, pay a CFII or IGI to come to your place for some sim work on your computer (even a older machine) pay em 25hr cash and a beer.

You'll get 95% of what a red bird and a retail priced CFII will offer, from the comfort of your home.
 
I believe that $100 for a Redbird FMX is a good value as that $100 also INCLUDES the instructor and up to 20 hours can be logged in your logbook toward your instrument rating. I also believe that 20 hours of training is more like 30 hours of actual aircraft training as you will not have to worry about runway assignments, traffic, traffic alerts, ATC delays or do a run up at the end of the runway. We had several students use the Redbird and get their instrument ticket and the examiners are very pleased with the results after only 40 to 45 hours of training. If you are paying more than $100 an hour including instructor you may want to consider something different or negotiate the price. Our price is marked at $100 per hour and this includes the instructor, and we only employee 8000 hour plus experienced pilots. So you're not getting your 250 our pilot trying to build time toward getting to the airlines, and it is a very good bargain. We also have the multi engine simulator that we charge $130 an hour WITH an instructor. 50 hours can go toward your commercial certificate using the Redbird FMX. I hope this helps in any of your discussions or shed some light on the value and use.
Of the $100 the flight school also has overhead and the mortgage on the FMX. I think the RedBird and/or an AATD for use of training makes the sky's safer to fly in. As a corporate pilot I fully endorse scenario-based training, the use of simulators, and real life distractions all of which can be displayed and challenged and a FMX. And on a logbook note the flight simulator can also be used towards total time if you are looking to get your 250 hours to become a commercial pilot. Therefore the only disadvantage of the simulator is, well I can't think of any.
 
Last edited:
For ifr anyway, The problem is only 10 should be logable towards the rating.
 
James331 said:
also keep in mind the red bird is running a very slightly tweaked version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and the motion is more of a gimmick.

Heck get a yoke and rudder pedals of Craig's list, buy flight sim X for $20, or download it, pay a CFII or IGI to come to your place for some sim work on your computer (even a older machine) pay em 25hr cash and a beer.

You'll get 95% of what a red bird and a retail priced CFII will offer, from the comfort of your home.
Click to expand...

This^^! ;)

A guy I know in Cali did this. Hooked his desktop up to display on a 40"-sized flatscreen, mounted a yoke to the desk, tossed rudder pedals underneath and runs FSX. VERY good simulation! He also runs the little head-strap that let's you look around the cockpit; however, that thing was way too sensitive and caused too much trouble, so I disabled it. I'm waiting for him to send me the specs on his system so I can set mine up similar.
 
The effectiveness of simulator training is directly proportional to the skill of the instructor who is running it. If the instructor is proficient at running the simulator, and knows how to use it effectively to reach the training objectives, then the time spent in the sim will be very productive.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1577452 said:
Haven't used it, but my understanding is 15/hr for the BATD, 45/hr for the instructor. Not sure if they will let you use it to practice on your own without an instructor.
Click to expand...
$15/hr for the device seems cheap, but if they can do it for that price, and the BATD is certified for 10 hours for the IR, it's a great deal. OTOH, I think $100/hr for an FTD with instructor is about average. Problem is a lot of the Redbirds are actually ATD's, and despite their original LoA's, will only be usable for 10 hours towards the IR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top