Redbird visit

[wabower]

Toured the plant in Austin today, flew and discussed sims ranging in price from @$2,500 (the Jay) to $8,000 (the TD-2) to $200,000 (for the KA-350.)

The products were impressive and they have many good ideas being implemented and more in the works. Hope it continues. I arranged the visit for a client who is largely responsible for the operation of a big club that includes planes ranging from a Cessna 150 to 340s King Airs. He too was impressed with the operation and will probably order a couple of the mid-range models.

 

[dans2992]

A club.... That has King Airs?

What are the pilot requirements on those!!?

 

[coma24]

Wayne, I saw their King Air when I was there installing PilotEdge on a couple of the sims (not sure they're demoing it yet, though). Having circuit breakers that can be popped is a nice feature.

 

[wsuffa]

And here I thought you made the short trip to that airport across town that has some fancy new name that uses the word "Executive".

 

[wabower]

The big sims were impressive, especially considering that the cost is less than 10% of a comparable level D, but I was impressed with the small units as well.

The interactive scenarios can be valuable tools if a pilot pays attention and plays the game as designed. I was talking to the sales rep while flying a portion of mountain pass scenario in the Jay. At some point the screen froze and I was asked for a decision to turn back, divert, land immediately (off airport) or climb to IFR and continue.

Since I hadn't been involved in the planning and performance for the trip, I simply elected IFR and established a climb that proved to be fatal. The plane's inability to top the peak was very realistic (I almost made it) but then it crashed and burned. The last image was from the viewpoint of an outsider standing on the hillside and watching the fire.

As simple as it sounds and even though I've flown many thousands of hours and many hundreds of trips in the mountains, I somehow think that simple little video presentation will stick in my tiny mind for a long time.

Wayne, I saw their King Air when I was there installing PilotEdge on a couple of the sims (not sure they're demoing it yet, though). Having circuit breakers that can be popped is a nice feature.

 

[MAKG1]

Seems a bit unrealistic to ask if you're going to continue. In a simulator, don't you always have the option to continue, land, divert, or turn back?

 

[wabower]

What's realistic to me is the young family from Houston and the group of kids from Dallas who died because somebody in charge didn't ask himself that same question in similar circumstances. Maybe it's about time somebody started requiring a response at the time the issue becomes urgent, rather than letting the no-plan nitwits masquerading as PIC continue until they crash.

Seems a bit unrealistic to ask if you're going to continue. In a simulator, don't you always have the option to continue, land, divert, or turn back?

 

[Ted]

That sounds interesting. Do they have a website?

 

[wabower]

That sounds interesting. Do they have a website?

Is your question whether redbirdflightsimulations.com provides a web presence for the company formed by former Dell and Pepsi execs to provide cutting-edge GA sims to the industry? If so, the answer is yo bubba.

 

[Ted]

Is your question whether redbirdflightsimulations.com provides a web presence for the company formed by former Dell and Pepsi execs to provide cutting-edge GA sims to the industry? If so, the answer is yo bubba.

I think the real question should have been phrased as: "I'm too lazy to use Google, so could you give me the website.

I'll look around and see what they've got.

 

[Archammer]

Really great place isn't it? The skyport is equally fantastic. I was lucky enough to be their initial test pilot for the new Part 141 school, and am a testament to the value of simulation based training and it's importance in modern aviation.

Iflytwins, if you're looking for the flight school / FBO website: http://redbirdskyport.com/

 

[wabower]

It's a breath of fresh air for sure, one of many we need to sustain the life of this dramatically-shrinking segment of aviation.

Really great place isn't it? The skyport is equally fantastic. I was lucky enough to be their initial test pilot for the new Part 141 school, and am a testament to the value of simulation based training and it's importance in modern aviation.

Iflytwins, if you're looking for the flight school / FBO website: http://redbirdskyport.com/

 

[kgruber]

What's realistic to me is the young family from Houston and the group of kids from Dallas who died because somebody in charge didn't ask himself that same question in similar circumstances. Maybe it's about time somebody started requiring a response at the time the issue becomes urgent, rather than letting the no-plan nitwits masquerading as PIC continue until they crash.

Frank Sinatra's mother comes to mind.

 

[MAKG1]

What's realistic to me is the young family from Houston and the group of kids from Dallas who died because somebody in charge didn't ask himself that same question in similar circumstances. Maybe it's about time somebody started requiring a response at the time the issue becomes urgent, rather than letting the no-plan nitwits masquerading as PIC continue until they crash.

In a simulator, let them continue, and die virtually.

IMO, much more effective without the "are you sure you want to do this?" question. You die without warning (at least, without warning you were paying attention to).

The thing is, it also gives you the potential failure of deciding too late. Turning back may no longer be an option when the pass starts to get narrow.

 

[Sykes]

For what it's worth, during my primary training I did a session in the XWind simulator (before the company was acquired by RedBird) and found it to be a simple and clever approach to learning basic crosswind landing concepts.

I later did about 17 hours over several days in a Redbird FMX with the Cessna 172 G1000 configuration during my instrument training and found it to be tremendously frustrating. Prior to starting, I had about 150 hours of VFR flying in a G1000 Cessna 182 so I was intimately familiar with the operation of a G1000, how it should respond, etc. Unlike the Elite sims and some of the others that use the actual Garmin GDU 1040s (with some of the other components emulated), the Redbird uses 100% software emulation, and I found the G1000 fidelity to be surprisingly poor ... so much so that I primarily used the Redbird to practice approaches using traditional navaids (VOR, ILS, etc. where I just knobbed through frequencies rather than trying to sequence a flight plan) and did most of my GPS approach practice in the air.

The motion was cool, although I feel like it was mostly useful for simulating the distraction of turbulence rather than simulating the true motion, and the actual simulation other than the G1000 was great (so I imagine that the six-pack configuration would be good too), but I'd be hard-pressed to recommend the FMX for anyone who is training with a G1000. Having said that, it's been over two years since I did my instrument training, so it's entirely possible (even likely) that they have improved things since then.

 

[wabower]

In the described scenario, the question appeared only after the pilot had run through a number of decision-making stop signs (that I didn't see because I was yakking with the sales guy) and was really a reminder of the gravity of the situation. I don't know what would have happened if I had chosen any of the other options. If you don't like the way they do it you can write your own scenarios.

In a simulator, let them continue, and die virtually.

IMO, much more effective without the "are you sure you want to do this?" question. You die without warning (at least, without warning you were paying attention to).

The thing is, it also gives you the potential failure of deciding too late. Turning back may no longer be an option when the pass starts to get narrow.

 

[MAKG1]

For what it's worth, during my primary training I did a session in the XWind simulator (before the company was acquired by RedBird) and found it to be a simple and clever approach to learning basic crosswind landing concepts.

I later did about 17 hours over several days in a Redbird FMX with the Cessna 172 G1000 configuration during my instrument training and found it to be tremendously frustrating. Prior to starting, I had about 150 hours of VFR flying in a G1000 Cessna 182 so I was intimately familiar with the operation of a G1000, how it should respond, etc. Unlike the Elite sims and some of the others that use the actual Garmin GDU 1040s (with some of the other components emulated), the Redbird uses 100% software emulation, and I found the G1000 fidelity to be surprisingly poor ... so much so that I primarily used the Redbird to practice approaches using traditional navaids (VOR, ILS, etc. where I just knobbed through frequencies rather than trying to sequence a flight plan) and did most of my GPS approach practice in the air.

The motion was cool, although I feel like it was mostly useful for simulating the distraction of turbulence rather than simulating the true motion, and the actual simulation other than the G1000 was great (so I imagine that the six-pack configuration would be good too), but I'd be hard-pressed to recommend the FMX for anyone who is training with a G1000. Having said that, it's been over two years since I did my instrument training, so it's entirely possible (even likely) that they have improved things since then.

That's kinda shocking, actually.

It's conventional in the simulation biz to use actual components for high end simulators, and many of us spend countless hours reverse engineering the interfaces to get that to work. One of my colleagues even has a partially disassembled F-18 (with a bent airframe making it unairworthy) downstairs from the lab.

Emulations have their place, but they have to be really good ones. And I'd expect that one to be worth several million lines of code. Probably truncated to a much more manageable few tens of thousands. It's not at all obvious that an emulation of that complexity will be cheaper than real components, and it will certainly have deviations from the real item.

 

[chartbundle]

Having said that, it's been over two years since I did my instrument training, so it's entirely possible (even likely) that they have improved things since then.

Well, if the TD2 is any indication, no they really haven't. I have access to one where I fly and try it out from time to time and it's really still not that great. You have to remind yourself frequently how to do stuff on the 'sim' that differs from the actual plane. On the other hand it's often nice to be able to fly the DME Arc to a LOC BC approach with a failed AHRS to an airport 300 miles from home.

 

[wabower]

Pilots are amazingly consistent.

Those I work with travel up to 1,500 miles and pay twice the purchase price of a TD sim for three days training in a level C or D sim. Then they too emerge and ***** about the sim flying different from the real plane and then ***** more that the equipment isn't exactly the same as in their plane at home.