Hi All,

I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.

FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
except for the instruments refreshing.

Thanks everyone!

Steve

In a previous article, said:
>so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
>holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
>altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
>even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the

I had the same problem with the Elite PCATD at the local FBO. Finally I
gave up on the yoke and control the altitude with the trim lever.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian
because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown

Kill the scenery. This takes a lot of computer power. If you use IFR
conditions where everything is white outside (no detail at all) I'll wager
your altitude control will be more realistic.

Rod

On Feb 13, 6:48 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, said:
>
> >so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> >holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> >altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> >even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
>
> I had the same problem with the Elite PCATD at the local FBO. Finally I
> gave up on the yoke and control the altitude with the trim lever.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian
> because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown


I've tried just just using the trim in the past, (I have one of the
rocker switches configured to actually set trim, I'm not using the
calibration wheel on the yoke) but unfortunately that seems to
accurately simulate a real plane's behavior. In other words, I'm
either climbing through my assigned altitude, then overcorrect to drop
right through the bottom!

Of course my problems could be just my lack of proficiency using a
simulator. Maybe I'm just too ham-handed to make it work! Anyway,
thanks for your suggestions. I'll try the trim trick again tonight.

I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been my
experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite. Hard
to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.

On 2/13/2007 6:43 PM, wrote the following:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Steve
>

On 02/13/07 16:43, wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier.

This is definitely true. What I finally did was to make use of the
auto pilot. I can have it hold the altitude for me and I don't need
to worry about it.

At times, I'll use the auto pilot to hold the heading as well, but
this isn't as much of a problem in the sim, so I usually do that only
when it's a long flight along an airway and I want to just let it
go until things get interesting again ;-)

> I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.

I can think of a couple things. First, configure the weather to provide
you with white-out conditions at the altitudes you plan to fly. This will
reduce the work load on the CPU for drawing all the scenery.

Next, look into your graphics card. There may be upgraded drivers for
it that will improve the performance. If not, you may want to look into
a better graphics card.


>
> FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> except for the instruments refreshing.

Are you seeing this problem with anything other than the AI? I
see this a little on the AI but not on anything else.

>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Steve
>

I've found the simulator to be very good at keeping me sharp on the
procedures, etc. Of course, I'd rather be in a real plane, but just
can't get out as often as I would like.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Feb 13, 7:11 pm, "rod" > wrote:
> Kill the scenery. This takes a lot of computer power. If you use IFR
> conditions where everything is white outside (no detail at all) I'll wager
> your altitude control will be more realistic.
>
> Rod

While I'm practicing, I am in the clouds completely. No scenery at
all.

Of course if I 'ever' do learn how to control altitude in a simulator,
I suppose the plane would be cake!

On Feb 13, 7:17 pm, Mitty > wrote:
> I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been my
> experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite. Hard
> to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.
>
>
I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
lesson (or two or three).

Steve

On Feb 13, 7:22 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 02/13/07 16:43, wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> > can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> > so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> > holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> > altitude. The real plane is much much easier.
>
> This is definitely true. What I finally did was to make use of the
> auto pilot. I can have it hold the altitude for me and I don't need
> to worry about it.
>
> At times, I'll use the auto pilot to hold the heading as well, but
> this isn't as much of a problem in the sim, so I usually do that only
> when it's a long flight along an airway and I want to just let it
> go until things get interesting again ;-)
>
> > I also noticed that
> > even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> > instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> > but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> > the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> > number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> > proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> I can think of a couple things. First, configure the weather to provide
> you with white-out conditions at the altitudes you plan to fly. This will
> reduce the work load on the CPU for drawing all the scenery.
>
> Next, look into your graphics card. There may be upgraded drivers for
> it that will improve the performance. If not, you may want to look into
> a better graphics card.
>
>
>
> > FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> > rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> > graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> > except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> Are you seeing this problem with anything other than the AI? I
> see this a little on the AI but not on anything else.
>
>
>
> > Thanks everyone!
>
> > Steve
>
> I've found the simulator to be very good at keeping me sharp on the
> procedures, etc. Of course, I'd rather be in a real plane, but just
> can't get out as often as I would like.
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA


You know using the autopilot in the simulator to just hold altitude is
one thing I haven't thought about. The only autopilot I have in the
'real' plane is a single axis (heading only) which I'm not using while
learning the rating. Very good idea!

You are right about seeing the smoothness problem mostly on the AI.
This happens with no scenery displayed (in the clouds). I haven't
checked to see if there are any updated drivers available for my video
card, but I will! With everything else so smooth, it seems odd that
the instrument display is the only thing that isn't.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Steve

> I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier.

Yep.

> I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate.

Yep.

> I was just wondering how you have it set up.

Probably the same way you do. I just put up with it. :)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier.


Absolutely the real aircraft is easier. You can feel the pressure against your
hand in the real airplane. MSFS has never duplicated that accurately.



>I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,


When I'm flying the sim IFR (which is 99% of the time... I fly a real airplane
when I want to see something), I have the sim set to fly solid IFR with 300 foot
ceilings at night. I waste very little resources on outside views.



> FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> graphics card.


Yolks are the yellow parts of eggs; I think you mean the yoke. But I digress.
On the top of the left horn of that yoke is a vertical toggle; assign the trim
to that toggle so it's just like the electric trim in a Cherokee. Trim is
everything in getting your altitude hold under control.

You know, the first thing to go when you don't fly enough solid IFR is your
instrument scan. That's where the flight sim comes in very handy. I had been
out of flying for 15 years and then passed a IFR comp check with minimal
difficulty because I got my scan going with MSFS. I was all over the sky to
start with (in the sim) but by the time I climbed into a real airplane with a
CFII, my scan was sharp again. And the leading cause of difficulties in flying
IFR is a slow scan. You fixate on something while everything else is going to
hell in a handbasket.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

rod wrote:
> Kill the scenery. This takes a lot of computer power. If you use IFR
> conditions where everything is white outside (no detail at all) I'll wager
> your altitude control will be more realistic.


I almost forgot: be sure to lube the center shaft of that yoke with a little
bit of silicon grease and wiggle the controls around quite a bit before each
flight. The CH yoke has a tendency to catch otherwise, leading to jerky control
inputs.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

> wrote in message oups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Steve

Perhaps you're focusing on the wrong factors there, Steve.
Any training value of hobby-type simulators lies in practicing procedures,
and not in merely learning to control that simulated airplane.
Procedures-training is much more than just a video game.
Concentrate more on the procedures, less on the simulator.
As others said here, you'll have to accept imperfect simulation.

That said, though, it's smart to keep the simulated speeds and times
generally similar to those of the airplane you fly in real life.
You want those procedures to become comfortable habit patterns,
so they don't demand your undue attention as other things turn to worms.
After 21 IFR hours, I'm sure you know by now what that means. :-)

On Feb 13, 10:03 pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> > can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> > so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> > holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> > altitude. The real plane is much much easier.
>
> Absolutely the real aircraft is easier. You can feel the pressure against your
> hand in the real airplane. MSFS has never duplicated that accurately.
>
> >I also noticed that
> > even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> > instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
>
> When I'm flying the sim IFR (which is 99% of the time... I fly a real airplane
> when I want to see something), I have the sim set to fly solid IFR with 300 foot
> ceilings at night. I waste very little resources on outside views.
>
> > FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> > rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> > graphics card.
>
> Yolks are the yellow parts of eggs; I think you mean the yoke. But I digress.
> On the top of the left horn of that yoke is a vertical toggle; assign the trim
> to that toggle so it's just like the electric trim in a Cherokee. Trim is
> everything in getting your altitude hold under control.
>
> You know, the first thing to go when you don't fly enough solid IFR is your
> instrument scan. That's where the flight sim comes in very handy. I had been
> out of flying for 15 years and then passed a IFR comp check with minimal
> difficulty because I got my scan going with MSFS. I was all over the sky to
> start with (in the sim) but by the time I climbed into a real airplane with a
> CFII, my scan was sharp again. And the leading cause of difficulties in flying
> IFR is a slow scan. You fixate on something while everything else is going to
> hell in a handbasket.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com



I guess the yolk's on me! ;) Indeed I am not trying to fly using the
yellow part of an egg.


I do have the trim set up the way you describe. I will also try
putting grease on the YOKE like you suggested in another post. I have
noticed that with the yoke at rest and everything in trim, the springs
never seem to return it to the exact same position after making an
control input. This just makes things harder. I can see where grease
may help.

I will keep up the good fight (at least it seems that way sometimes)
and see if I can quicken my scan, and never ever fixate.


Thanks for responding.

On Feb 13, 10:41 pm, "John R. Copeland" >
wrote:
> > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> > Hi All,
>
> > I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> > can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> > so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> > holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> > altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> > even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> > instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> > but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> > the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> > number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> > proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> > FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> > rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> > graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> > except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> > Thanks everyone!
>
> > Steve
>
> Perhaps you're focusing on the wrong factors there, Steve.
> Any training value of hobby-type simulators lies in practicing procedures,
> and not in merely learning to control that simulated airplane.
> Procedures-training is much more than just a video game.
> Concentrate more on the procedures, less on the simulator.
> As others said here, you'll have to accept imperfect simulation.
>
> That said, though, it's smart to keep the simulated speeds and times
> generally similar to those of the airplane you fly in real life.
> You want those procedures to become comfortable habit patterns,
> so they don't demand your undue attention as other things turn to worms.
> After 21 IFR hours, I'm sure you know by now what that means. :-)

I was trying to use the simulator as both a procedures trainer, and to
help me with my scan and ability to precisely control an airplane by
reference to instruments alone. And yes I know all about things
turning into worms!

My biggest issue right now is that when (in a real airplane) I'm only
focusing on the instruments, things go very well. When I have to look
up a procedure or find an intersection and take my attention away from
the instruments: that's when the worms can come out of the ground!

Thanks for your time.

writes:

> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier.

Difficult in what way?

If you have an autopilot, use it. Flying by instruments concerns the
method(s) through which you obtain situational awareness, not the methods you
use to control the aircraft.

Trimming the aircraft is time-consuming in MSFS because it's hard to tell when
you have the trim just right. You can save time by using the autopilot to
hold altitude and set trim, at which point you can turn off the AP and fly by
hand, if you wish.

> I also noticed that even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm
> in VMC!) the instruments seem to update at a slower rate.

To some extent, that depends on the aircraft model. There's a setting in MSFS
that controls gauge quality that might help. Add-ons sometimes have a
separate setting for gauge update speeds (which are independent of scenery
update speeds).

In any case, if you are using the simulator for instrument practice rather
than flying practice, frame rates are a bit less important, unless you are
taking off or landing.

Set the weather to a constant heavy fog, and frame rates should improve all
around.

The default aircraft on MSFS don't have the resolution of some add-ons, so you
may see them snap from one degree to the next on a dial, instead of moving
smoothly. Instruments such as those from Reality XP behave as smoothly as in
real life, but they cost extra (some aircraft include them).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

> While I'm practicing, I am in the clouds completely. No scenery at
> all.

Make sure you turn all weather off except for low visibility at your altitude.
It's easier to generate and the sim will run faster that way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mark Hansen writes:

> Next, look into your graphics card. There may be upgraded drivers for
> it that will improve the performance. If not, you may want to look into
> a better graphics card.

Flight simulators (including MSFS) are normally CPU-bound, so a faster
graphics card may not make any difference.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

RN,

> I almost forgot: be sure to lube the center shaft of that yoke with a little
> bit of silicon grease and wiggle the controls around quite a bit before each
> flight. The CH yoke has a tendency to catch otherwise, leading to jerky control
> inputs.
>

That's a really good hint. Helps a lot.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude.
>

That's not really what you can practice with MSFS. It's just not close
enough to the real thing.

What you CAN practice, is procedures. The whole timing, cockpit
organisation and everything. Figuring out hold entries, setting up
stuff, how much time is there from IAF to FAF to touchdown, those
things. You need to really sit down with the kneeboard and approach
charts. I wouldn't/didn't bother with radio work, since it is so
unrealistic.

If you do this with approached you actually use during training, that
helps quite a bit.

If you want the sim to be smoother, try dialing back on the graphics
settings. You don't need dynamic scenery, you don't need cloud detail
or scenery detail. That helps a lot.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> This happens with no scenery displayed (in the clouds).
>

MSFS does calculate scenery even when showing whit. You need to turn
down the detail level (and dynamic scenery - very important!). Also,
check the realism settings. All but P-factor (totally unrealistic)
should be high.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> When I have to look
> up a procedure or find an intersection and take my attention away from
> the instruments: that's when the worms can come out of the ground!
>

Ah, that's why single pilot IFR in Germany requires a two-axis autopilot
(with alt hold) by law.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I noticed all the comments on holding altitude.
I ,too, found it nearly impossible until I used the add on realtrim
free from avsim lib
http://library.avsim.net/

File Description:
RealTrim is a Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004(tm) module that makes trimming
aircrafts
more realistic and resemble real-life. It can be activated via key-press
when the
sim-pilot moves the joystick from deflection to neutral,
hence converting the movement of the joystick into movement of the trim
wheel.
This matches real-life where back/forward pressure on the elevator applied
by the pilot
is trimmed out by ONE operation: moving the trim-wheel. As the sim-pilot
smoothly moves
the joystick into neutral position RealTrim automatically adjusts the
elevator trim by a
corresponding amount. The airplane keeps its current pitch configuration -
only ONE
control input is required instead of the pilots having to move the joystick
into neutral
WHILE tapping the trim-key at the same time. RealTrim also comes with an
option to reduce
trim increments making it more precise to adjust trim in flight with the
trim up/down keys.

Its not exactly like trimming off control presssure but close and it sure
beats playing
with the trim wheel

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Steve
>

On 02/13/07 20:53, wrote:

[ snip ]

>
> My biggest issue right now is that when (in a real airplane) I'm only
> focusing on the instruments, things go very well. When I have to look
> up a procedure or find an intersection and take my attention away from
> the instruments: that's when the worms can come out of the ground!

That's a common problem for us "green" IFR pilots ;-)

My instructor would always say "Fly a little, look a little" as a reminder
to not lose focus on the attitude of the airplane while fiddling with the
GPS or some such task. It sounds so easy, but in practice it takes some
getting used to.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Ah, that's why single pilot IFR in Germany requires a two-axis autopilot
> (with alt hold) by law.

Everything is either required or prohibited by law in Germany.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert writes:

> That's not really what you can practice with MSFS. It's just not close
> enough to the real thing.

That depends on the aircraft, and the situation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 13, 11:48 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> > can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> > so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> > holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> > altitude. The real plane is much much easier.
>
> Difficult in what way?
>
> If you have an autopilot, use it. Flying by instruments concerns the
> method(s) through which you obtain situational awareness, not the methods you
> use to control the aircraft.

I guess I have to disagree with you there. The first priority should
be keeping the airplane from stalling/spinning/spiraling into the
ground (AVIATE, navigate, communicate). This is easy when using an
autopilot, but unfortunately autopilots aren't as common on light
single engine aircraft as one would hope. And if there is one, it's
usually just a single axis (heading only). Failure to Aviate seems
to be the most popular method of killing yourself in instrument
conditions.

The second priority is navigation. This is where you need situation
awareness so you don't fly into mountains, and can find the runways.
Navigating can also kill you (CFIT, midairs). .

Finally, it's important to let ATC know what you are doing
(communication). Not too many people have died by failing to
communicate.

> Trimming the aircraft is time-consuming in MSFS because it's hard to tell when
> you have the trim just right. You can save time by using the autopilot to
> hold altitude and set trim, at which point you can turn off the AP and fly by
> hand, if you wish.
>
> > I also noticed that even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm
> > in VMC!) the instruments seem to update at a slower rate.
>
> To some extent, that depends on the aircraft model. There's a setting in MSFS
> that controls gauge quality that might help. Add-ons sometimes have a
> separate setting for gauge update speeds (which are independent of scenery
> update speeds).

The only setting I saw in MSFS for gauge quality is for 3D. I don't
use that mode when flying instruments, but maybe there's another
setting I haven't found yet.
>
> In any case, if you are using the simulator for instrument practice rather
> than flying practice, frame rates are a bit less important, unless you are
> taking off or landing.
>
> Set the weather to a constant heavy fog, and frame rates should improve all
> around.

I've been using the advanced weather to set 200 ft ceilings 8/8
overcast stratus with 10,000ft tops, and 1/2 mile visibility. Will
heavy fog be present at 5000 ft? I'll try it.
>
> The default aircraft on MSFS don't have the resolution of some add-ons, so you
> may see them snap from one degree to the next on a dial, instead of moving
> smoothly. Instruments such as those from Reality XP behave as smoothly as in
> real life, but they cost extra (some aircraft include them).

I've seen those advertised before, but I haven't met anyone who has
tried one. If they are that much better, I would be very willing to
buy one.

Thanks.


> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
wrote:
>> ... want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
>> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
>> altitude. The real plane is much much easier.
>
>Absolutely the real aircraft is easier. You can feel the pressure against your
>hand in the real airplane. MSFS has never duplicated that accurately.

Neither X-Plane. As Steve, I tried using both X-Plane and MSFS 2002 to
reinforce the procedures while getting my SEL private rating.
Specially landing procedures. (Here I slow down, here I open the flaps
one notch, etc.)
In the final stages, when I was getting consistently good comments on
my landings from my flight instructors (on three planes: C152, C172,
Cherokees) I still couldn't hold a stable approach on a simulator.
(And I also got a CH yoke & pedals, not via a joystick.)



Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

On Feb 14, 7:06 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> > This happens with no scenery displayed (in the clouds).
>
> MSFS does calculate scenery even when showing whit. You need to turn
> down the detail level (and dynamic scenery - very important!). Also,
> check the realism settings. All but P-factor (totally unrealistic)
> should be high.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I didn't know that scenery was still calculated even when not
visible. I will dial everything down.

Thanks!

On Feb 14, 8:22 am, "john hawkins" > wrote:
> I noticed all the comments on holding altitude.
> I ,too, found it nearly impossible until I used the add on realtrim
> free from avsim libhttp://library.avsim.net/
>
> File Description:
> RealTrim is a Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004(tm) module that makes trimming
> aircrafts
> more realistic and resemble real-life. It can be activated via key-press
> when the
> sim-pilot moves the joystick from deflection to neutral,
> hence converting the movement of the joystick into movement of the trim
> wheel.
> This matches real-life where back/forward pressure on the elevator applied
> by the pilot
> is trimmed out by ONE operation: moving the trim-wheel. As the sim-pilot
> smoothly moves
> the joystick into neutral position RealTrim automatically adjusts the
> elevator trim by a
> corresponding amount. The airplane keeps its current pitch configuration -
> only ONE
> control input is required instead of the pilots having to move the joystick
> into neutral
> WHILE tapping the trim-key at the same time. RealTrim also comes with an
> option to reduce
> trim increments making it more precise to adjust trim in flight with the
> trim up/down keys.
>
> Its not exactly like trimming off control presssure but close and it sure
> beats playing
> with the trim wheel

Another great idea.

Thanks
>
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> > can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> > so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> > holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> > altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> > even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> > instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> > but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> > the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> > number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> > proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> > FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> > rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> > graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> > except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> > Thanks everyone!
>
> > Steve

On Feb 14, 9:13 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 02/13/07 20:53, wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>
> > My biggest issue right now is that when (in a real airplane) I'm only
> > focusing on the instruments, things go very well. When I have to look
> > up a procedure or find an intersection and take my attention away from
> > the instruments: that's when the worms can come out of the ground!
>
> That's a common problem for us "green" IFR pilots ;-)
>
> My instructor would always say "Fly a little, look a little" as a reminder
> to not lose focus on the attitude of the airplane while fiddling with the
> GPS or some such task. It sounds so easy, but in practice it takes some
> getting used to.

You are right about that! Maybe someday I will finally learn how to
divide my time effectively. >
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA

On Feb 14, 11:12 am, Roberto Waltman > wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
> wrote:
> >> ... want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> >> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> >> altitude. The real plane is much much easier.
>
> >Absolutely the real aircraft is easier. You can feel the pressure against your
> >hand in the real airplane. MSFS has never duplicated that accurately.
>
> Neither X-Plane. As Steve, I tried using both X-Plane and MSFS 2002 to
> reinforce the procedures while getting my SEL private rating.
> Specially landing procedures. (Here I slow down, here I open the flaps
> one notch, etc.)
> In the final stages, when I was getting consistently good comments on
> my landings from my flight instructors (on three planes: C152, C172,
> Cherokees) I still couldn't hold a stable approach on a simulator.
> (And I also got a CH yoke & pedals, not via a joystick.)
>
> Roberto Waltman
>
> [ Please reply to the group,
> return address is invalid ]

I having using MSFS from way back. I had many simulator hours years
before I finally got my private ticket in '99. Contrary to popular
opinion, I think it helped immensely (even with stick and rudder
skills) when I finally got around to flying for "real".

The one thing I didn't like on the simulator was crosswind landings, a
concept which took longer for me to get through my thick skull than it
should have!

You are right about holding a stable approach on the simulator. It
seems especially hard for me during an ILS approach. With a real
airplane it I have never have seen a full deflection of the needles;
it's common on the simulator!

Thanks Roberto.

writes:

> I didn't know that scenery was still calculated even when not
> visible.

It's not. If you put solid fog in your window, frame rates will rise
substantially.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Roberto Waltman writes:

> In the final stages, when I was getting consistently good comments on
> my landings from my flight instructors (on three planes: C152, C172,
> Cherokees) I still couldn't hold a stable approach on a simulator.

You're probably depending a great deal on physical sensations. You can
probably get away with that on the aircraft you've been flying, but not all
aircraft (it's hard to fly by the seat of one's pants in an Airbus).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-02-14, > wrote:
>
> Of course if I 'ever' do learn how to control altitude in a simulator,
> I suppose the plane would be cake!

I find the real thing easier, but I also find that everything in FS
seems to take forever compared to real life. If you want more challenge,
try setting the simulation speed to 2x or 4x and doing some approaches.
You think holding altitude is touchy now -- wait until your virtual 182
has an effective climb/descent rate of 4000FPM!

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

writes:

> I guess I have to disagree with you there. The first priority should
> be keeping the airplane from stalling/spinning/spiraling into the
> ground (AVIATE, navigate, communicate).

That is situational awareness. As long as you know the aircraft's attitude
and condition, you can avoid stalls, spins, and spirals. To know that in IMC,
you need to read the instruments.

How you actually fly the aircraft once you know your situation is irrelevant
to IFR. You can use the autopilot if you want, and in fact doing so will give
you more freedom to worry about other things. The actual flying of the
aircraft is no different in IFR from in VFR--the aircraft behaves the same way
and responds the same way. So you don't need to worry about that if you
already know how to fly in VFR. What you need to worry about is keeping
tracking of your position, altitude, attitude, and so on, so that you know
what control inputs to make.

This being so, it's not "cheating" to use an autopilot for IFR.

> This is easy when using an autopilot, but unfortunately autopilots aren't
> as common on light single engine aircraft as one would hope.

I personally would question the wisdom of flying anywhere IFR without an
autopilot, but it's not a regulatory requirement (at least in the U.S.).

> Failure to Aviate seems to be the most popular method of killing yourself
> in instrument conditions.

Yes. But still, if you have an autopilot, use it. In IFR the difficulty is
determining what to do--not actually doing it (which is the same as in VFR).

Put another way, "aviating" is the same in IFR as in VFR, when it comes to
controlling the aircraft.

> The only setting I saw in MSFS for gauge quality is for 3D. I don't
> use that mode when flying instruments, but maybe there's another
> setting I haven't found yet.

There's that one, but there must be other internal settings because add-ons
often give more options. You can control the update rates for scenery and
instruments separately inside the simulator.

> I've seen those advertised before, but I haven't met anyone who has
> tried one. If they are that much better, I would be very willing to
> buy one.

The Reality XP add-on instruments are astonishingly realistic--absolutely
smooth, photographically real in appearance, and they also do _everything_
that the real-world instrument does--all the buttons work, etc.

The Garmin GPS units from Reality XP use the same Garmin software as Garmin's
own simulations, so they are guaranteed to behave exactly like the real thing.
You can step away from the sim and into the cockpit and continue using the GPS
unit without skipping a beat.

The built-in GPS units are lame by comparison. The same holds true for quite
a few other instruments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ben Jackson writes:

> I find the real thing easier, but I also find that everything in FS
> seems to take forever compared to real life.

What do you mean? It's a real-time simulation.

It's true that the clock in MSFS tends to run slightly slow over long periods,
for some reason, but that isn't noticeable except when you check the clock
after flying for a few hours.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 14, 1:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I guess I have to disagree with you there. The first priority should
> > be keeping the airplane from stalling/spinning/spiraling into the
> > ground (AVIATE, navigate, communicate).
>
> That is situational awareness. As long as you know the aircraft's attitude
> and condition, you can avoid stalls, spins, and spirals. To know that in IMC,
> you need to read the instruments.
>
> How you actually fly the aircraft once you know your situation is irrelevant
> to IFR. You can use the autopilot if you want, and in fact doing so will give
> you more freedom to worry about other things. The actual flying of the
> aircraft is no different in IFR from in VFR--the aircraft behaves the same way
> and responds the same way. So you don't need to worry about that if you
> already know how to fly in VFR. What you need to worry about is keeping
> tracking of your position, altitude, attitude, and so on, so that you know
> what control inputs to make.
>
> This being so, it's not "cheating" to use an autopilot for IFR.
>

I don't want to have my life dependent on a working autopilot, so I am
purposely avoiding it for now I understand that the airplane doesn't
know if it's in the clouds, but I can sure tell. Being able to fly
without an autopilot, and using only the instruments as a reference is
a HUGE part of my training.

That said, once I have my rating I will take advantage of everything
(autopilot, handheld GPS) at my disposal. But I still intend to
practice partial panel, no autopilot, no GPS so I don't get too rusty.


> > This is easy when using an autopilot, but unfortunately autopilots aren't
> > as common on light single engine aircraft as one would hope.
>
> I personally would question the wisdom of flying anywhere IFR without an
> autopilot, but it's not a regulatory requirement (at least in the U.S.).

It sure is a lot more interesting when all you have are the "steam
gauges". But I agree with you that autopilots do make life easier
(and safer).

>
> > Failure to Aviate seems to be the most popular method of killing yourself
> > in instrument conditions.
>
> Yes. But still, if you have an autopilot, use it. In IFR the difficulty is
> determining what to do--not actually doing it (which is the same as in VFR).

When your autopilot breaks, there is also difficulty in actually doing
it.

>
> Put another way, "aviating" is the same in IFR as in VFR, when it comes to
> controlling the aircraft.
>
> > The only setting I saw in MSFS for gauge quality is for 3D. I don't
> > use that mode when flying instruments, but maybe there's another
> > setting I haven't found yet.
>
> There's that one, but there must be other internal settings because add-ons
> often give more options. You can control the update rates for scenery and
> instruments separately inside the simulator.
>
> > I've seen those advertised before, but I haven't met anyone who has
> > tried one. If they are that much better, I would be very willing to
> > buy one.
>
> The Reality XP add-on instruments are astonishingly realistic--absolutely
> smooth, photographically real in appearance, and they also do _everything_
> that the real-world instrument does--all the buttons work, etc.
>
> The Garmin GPS units from Reality XP use the same Garmin software as Garmin's
> own simulations, so they are guaranteed to behave exactly like the real thing.
> You can step away from the sim and into the cockpit and continue using the GPS
> unit without skipping a beat.
>
> The built-in GPS units are lame by comparison. The same holds true for quite
> a few other instruments.

I went to Reality XP's website, and they had a side by side comparison
of the "stock" gauges, and their product. Amazing. One of the planes
I fly (and will be training in) has the Garmin 430, so I might be
downloading that as well. Thanks for the tip.

Steve

>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Use it for procedures (only). MSFS is a great way to keep the proper
habits/procedures when you aren't really flying. Forget about using it
for manipulation of controls - with regard to transferring those
"skills" to a real airplane.

For example -

wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
> altitude. The real plane is much much easier. I also noticed that
> even when the scenery flies by smoothly (when I'm in VMC!) the
> instruments seem to update at a slower rate. Not quite a slide show,
> but harder than it should be to control. I've tried fiddling with
> the realism and sensitivity settings to no avail. I have noticed a
> number of folks posting on this group use this simulator to maintain
> proficiency, and I was just wondering how you have it set up.
>
> FYI...I'm using the CH products USB Flight Sim yolk, and the CH USB
> rudder pedals. The computer seems plenty fast enough with a 256MB
> graphics card. Like I mentioned before, everything is very smooth
> except for the instruments refreshing.
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Steve
>

VFR flying is different than IMC - when using VFR rules your eyes should
be outside the cockpit - not inside on the instruments. In many ways an
instrument approach - even partial panel - is simpler - there are fewer
things to look at/be aware of.

Of course, if your flying experience is limited to MSFS then it is all
the same.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Roberto Waltman writes:
>
>
>>In the final stages, when I was getting consistently good comments on
>>my landings from my flight instructors (on three planes: C152, C172,
>>Cherokees) I still couldn't hold a stable approach on a simulator.
>
>
> You're probably depending a great deal on physical sensations. You can
> probably get away with that on the aircraft you've been flying, but not all
> aircraft (it's hard to fly by the seat of one's pants in an Airbus).
>

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Roberto Waltman writes:
>
>> In the final stages, when I was getting consistently good comments on
>> my landings from my flight instructors (on three planes: C152, C172,
>> Cherokees) I still couldn't hold a stable approach on a simulator.
>
>You're probably depending a great deal on physical sensations. You can
>probably get away with that on the aircraft you've been flying, but not all
>aircraft (it's hard to fly by the seat of one's pants in an Airbus).

Without (re)opening a discussion on the validity / goodness of
simulator time vs. actual-in-the-air time, and/or what flying means to
you or others, I would like to state that (talking for myself only):

(a) I have no intention, plans or desires to fly an Airbus (as a
pilot. I will continue to fly them as cargo.)

(b) I have no intention, plans or desires to pilot a jet airplane.

(c) I have no intention, plans or desires to pilot a multi-engine
airplane.

(d) I have no intention, plans or desires to pilot a complex airplane.
(Except to get a commercial rating)

(e) I have no intention, plans or desires to pilot a "modern" GA
airplane with it's increasingly complex avionics. (*)
(In some flights, while getting my private rating, I carried with me a
hand held GPS - For emergencies. I had it on for a few minutes to
verify it was working OK, and then it was switched off and went back
to the flight bag for the rest of the flight. Working with a sectional
is much more interesting.)

(f) I do have intentions of flying a couple of homebuilts airplanes
(both are restoration projects at these moment.) One is a "Nordo", (no
'lectrics), both have the simplest instrumentation you can get away
with, neither one is IFR equipped, or even night flying equipped.
(Why these? Because I can not afford a Stinson Reliant or a Stearman.)

(g) I do have intentions of getting IFR and commercial ratings, to
become a better pilot, to keep myself challenged, (maybe to become a
CFI after retirement?), but not to start a career in aviation.

(h) I do have intentions of flying gliders again some day.
For both (f) and (h) the thing immediately above the seat is a very
useful instrument, second only to the yaw-string. (When properly
calibrated, of course. ;) )

(i) I have invested a small sum of money in flight simulator related
materials: Software, yoke, pedals, a faster computer for the sim, etc.
I will continue to do so, I am even thinking of building a Cessna
152'ish cockpit with a believable panel.
And while I consider the simulator a valuable training aid for flying,
after having "slipped the surly bonds of Earth", I do not consider,
even for a second, that any amount of time spend in a simulator
qualifies as "Flying".

(YMMV, of course. And I am aware the of the FAA regulations regarding
simulator time for currency, ratings, etc.)


(*) Before somebody calls me a Luddite, at work I am currently trying
to debug a new system based on one of the latest-and-greatest,
"screaming-edge" Digital Signal Processor, hooked to a rat's nest of
wires leading to a 1Ghz Lecroy sampling oscilloscope and other
instruments, blah, blah, blah.
I am getting all the high-tech fixes I need here. Flying is for
something else ...

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

On 02/14/07 11:57, wrote:
> On Feb 14, 1:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > I guess I have to disagree with you there. The first priority should
>> > be keeping the airplane from stalling/spinning/spiraling into the
>> > ground (AVIATE, navigate, communicate).
>>
>> That is situational awareness. As long as you know the aircraft's attitude
>> and condition, you can avoid stalls, spins, and spirals. To know that in IMC,
>> you need to read the instruments.
>>
>> How you actually fly the aircraft once you know your situation is irrelevant
>> to IFR. You can use the autopilot if you want, and in fact doing so will give
>> you more freedom to worry about other things. The actual flying of the
>> aircraft is no different in IFR from in VFR--the aircraft behaves the same way
>> and responds the same way. So you don't need to worry about that if you
>> already know how to fly in VFR. What you need to worry about is keeping
>> tracking of your position, altitude, attitude, and so on, so that you know
>> what control inputs to make.
>>
>> This being so, it's not "cheating" to use an autopilot for IFR.
>>
>
> I don't want to have my life dependent on a working autopilot, so I am
> purposely avoiding it for now I understand that the airplane doesn't
> know if it's in the clouds, but I can sure tell. Being able to fly
> without an autopilot, and using only the instruments as a reference is
> a HUGE part of my training.

Steve,

I sent you a message off-line. Please let me know whether or not you've
received it. If your e-mail address is spam-proofed, just send me an
e-mail so I can get your actual address.

Thanks,

>
> That said, once I have my rating I will take advantage of everything
> (autopilot, handheld GPS) at my disposal. But I still intend to
> practice partial panel, no autopilot, no GPS so I don't get too rusty.
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

wrote:
> The one thing I didn't like on the simulator was crosswind landings, a
> concept which took longer for me to get through my thick skull than it
> should have!
>
> You are right about holding a stable approach on the simulator. It
> seems especially hard for me during an ILS approach. With a real
> airplane it I have never have seen a full deflection of the needles;
> it's common on the simulator!


I couldn't care less about landing the airplane in the sim, crosswind or
otherwise. I already know how to do that and I can't remember the last time I
made a hard landing. OTOH, almost every landing I've made in the sim has been
little better than a controlled crash. Sometimes it's an uncontrolled crash...
but WTH. I don't worry about it be cause I have the skills necessary to land
smoothly in real life.

I use the sim for the instrument practice: no scenery, panel in 2-D... it's all
about procedures and keeping my scan speed up to snuff. That's the stuff I work
on with the sim.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Feb 13, 7:43 pm, wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with

Steve,
For my instrument training, I used the Elite program and followed
their Instrument Training Syllabus. I completed this self-taught
course along with actual simulated instrument practice with my husband
as safety pilot before we took the accelerated instrument training
with Bill Zaleski in Schenecdaty NY. Bill told us that we were ready
for the checkrides after 5 days. My logbook showed that I only had
the 'minimum' dual instrument training time so the $150 I spent on the
core Elite program + $50 for the IFR training manual were well spent.
I highly recommend you giving it a try. We 'played' with MS Flight
Simulator for years mainly for the scenery but did not find it
realistic enough for control inputs/feedbacks. I also purchased X-
plane but did not spent a lot of time with it to compare with other
programs. By the way, we even bought the Dream Fleet Cardinal addon
for MS FS to 'simulate' our flying experience with our Cardinal. The
look was there but not the feel of the control. I have not used MS FS
for the last 2 years but my recollection was that the control
adjustments were not fine enough (with both my old Thrustmaster
Joystick/CH pedal or my new CH yolk/pedal). With Elite, I was able
to adjust the sensitivities to get pretty close to real life
flying. If you are interested in Elite but don't want to spend alot
of money, you may want to check ebay. A friend of mine just bought
the program for $100. I plan to loan him my IFR training manual to
practice in preparation for his IFR checkride. You can also download
Elite trial program. It allows you 5 minutes of 'practice'.

Hai Longworth

On Feb 14, 3:09 pm, "Longworth" > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 7:43 pm, wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > I'm a longtime lurker here, but now I have a question I hope the group
> > can help me with. I am working toward my instrument rating (21 hours
> > so far), and want to use MSFS to practice (cheaply). I do fine with
>
> Steve,
> For my instrument training, I used the Elite program and followed
> their Instrument Training Syllabus. I completed this self-taught
> course along with actual simulated instrument practice with my husband
> as safety pilot before we took the accelerated instrument training
> with Bill Zaleski in Schenecdaty NY. Bill told us that we were ready
> for the checkrides after 5 days. My logbook showed that I only had
> the 'minimum' dual instrument training time so the $150 I spent on the
> core Elite program + $50 for the IFR training manual were well spent.
> I highly recommend you giving it a try. We 'played' with MS Flight
> Simulator for years mainly for the scenery but did not find it
> realistic enough for control inputs/feedbacks. I also purchased X-
> plane but did not spent a lot of time with it to compare with other
> programs. By the way, we even bought the Dream Fleet Cardinal addon
> for MS FS to 'simulate' our flying experience with our Cardinal. The
> look was there but not the feel of the control. I have not used MS FS
> for the last 2 years but my recollection was that the control
> adjustments were not fine enough (with both my old Thrustmaster
> Joystick/CH pedal or my new CH yolk/pedal). With Elite, I was able
> to adjust the sensitivities to get pretty close to real life
> flying. If you are interested in Elite but don't want to spend alot
> of money, you may want to check ebay. A friend of mine just bought
> the program for $100. I plan to loan him my IFR training manual to
> practice in preparation for his IFR checkride. You can also download
> Elite trial program. It allows you 5 minutes of 'practice'.
>
> Hai Longworth

I downloaded the Elite demo (it's up to $200 now for the core
package), and it looks very nice. I didn't see any deals on Ebay
today, so it looks like $250 total if you include the book.

It still could be well worth the money considering what it costs to
learn in a real airplane. If I can't make MSFS happy using the
suggestions provided in this thread, I may very well buy it.

If I just stick to procedures training, and don't worry about actually
trying to fly by hand, I'm probably there already.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Steve

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:40:31 -0800, wrote
(in article . com>):

> On Feb 13, 7:22 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

>
>
> You know using the autopilot in the simulator to just hold altitude is
> one thing I haven't thought about. The only autopilot I have in the
> 'real' plane is a single axis (heading only) which I'm not using while
> learning the rating. Very good idea!

I would recommend becoming at least familiar with using it IFR. The examiner
might expect you to use it, even. A little practice wouldn't hurt.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:53:10 -0800, wrote
(in article . com>):


>
> My biggest issue right now is that when (in a real airplane) I'm only
> focusing on the instruments, things go very well. When I have to look
> up a procedure or find an intersection and take my attention away from
> the instruments: that's when the worms can come out of the ground!
>
> Thanks for your time.
>

It does get a lot easier with experience. You just need to get to the point
where you are controlling the airplane with a very light touch most of the
time.

A good practice is to take your hands and off the controls and see how long
the airplane stays where you put it. If it starts to drift immediately, you
might want to check your trim.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:06:59 -0800, Thomas Borchert wrote
(in article >):

>> I do fine with
>> holding a heading, but I find it very difficult to maintain an
>> altitude.
>>
>
> That's not really what you can practice with MSFS. It's just not close
> enough to the real thing.
>
> What you CAN practice, is procedures. The whole timing, cockpit
> organisation and everything. Figuring out hold entries, setting up
> stuff, how much time is there from IAF to FAF to touchdown, those
> things. You need to really sit down with the kneeboard and approach
> charts. I wouldn't/didn't bother with radio work, since it is so
> unrealistic.
>

Truly. MSFS can be an invaluable aid for these things.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Tim writes:

> VFR flying is different than IMC - when using VFR rules your eyes should
> be outside the cockpit - not inside on the instruments.

The manipulation of controls required to fly the plane is identical for both
IFR and VFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

> I don't want to have my life dependent on a working autopilot, so I am
> purposely avoiding it for now.

If you have a choice between a working autopilot and nothing, the working
autopilot is generally preferable.

Your life depends on an autopilot each time you board a commercial flight,
particularly if it's not a U.S. airline.

In IMC, you use all the resources you have in order to not get killed.
Eschewing the autopilot because you resent automation will put you at a
disadvantage if you are stuck in IMC and the autopilot can save you but you
can't remember how to use it.

> I understand that the airplane doesn't
> know if it's in the clouds, but I can sure tell. Being able to fly
> without an autopilot, and using only the instruments as a reference is
> a HUGE part of my training.

Perhaps I've not made myself clear. You use the instruments to assess your
situation. You use your autopilot to carry out your commands. The autopilot
is not a reference or a source of information; it is a work-saving device.
When you have lots of complex instruments to scan, it's very handy to have
something that will fly the aircraft for you based on your instructions.
There's no advantage to flying the plane by hand IFR if you have an autopilot.
And flying IFR is not the time to practice controlling the aircraft; if you
don't already know how to do that, trying to learn in IMC will lead to your
premature demise.

> That said, once I have my rating I will take advantage of everything
> (autopilot, handheld GPS) at my disposal. But I still intend to
> practice partial panel, no autopilot, no GPS so I don't get too rusty.

Try to make the distinction between sources of information and control
mechanisms. IFR is all about getting the right information; it's not about
controlling the aircraft.

> It sure is a lot more interesting when all you have are the "steam
> gauges". But I agree with you that autopilots do make life easier
> (and safer).

Autopilots and gauges are two different things. See above. Flying on
autopilot doesn't relieve you of the need to watch your instruments, it just
relieves you of the need to continually fly the airplane. Turning the
autopilot off doesn't make you any better at reading the instruments, either.

> When your autopilot breaks, there is also difficulty in actually doing
> it.

If you can control the aircraft in VFR, you can control it in IFR. If you
can't control the aircraft, you belong on the ground.

If your autopilot is not broken, there's no shame in using it. That's what it
is there for.

> I went to Reality XP's website, and they had a side by side comparison
> of the "stock" gauges, and their product. Amazing. One of the planes
> I fly (and will be training in) has the Garmin 430, so I might be
> downloading that as well. Thanks for the tip.

They were still photos, no? They are really impressive when they are actually
operating. Silky smooth action, behavior just like the real thing, and no
buttons or knobs that do not work.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 14, 5:02 pm, C J Campbell
> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:40:31 -0800, wrote
> (in article . com>):
>
> > On Feb 13, 7:22 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
> > You know using the autopilot in the simulator to just hold altitude is
> > one thing I haven't thought about. The only autopilot I have in the
> > 'real' plane is a single axis (heading only) which I'm not using while
> > learning the rating. Very good idea!
>
> I would recommend becoming at least familiar with using it IFR. The examiner
> might expect you to use it, even. A little practice wouldn't hurt.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

Actually I belong to a flying club. There are two planes that I will
be using. A Warrior (no autopilot, no ADF, no DME, no GPS, no backup
vacuum) and a Dakota (single axis autopilot, ADF, DME, Garmin 430 GPS,
with backup vacuum). I will be using the Warrior for the check ride
since no ADF means no ADF approaches ;-)

After getting the rating I will probably be using the Dakota on real
IFR trips just based on safety, but it's cheaper to practice in the
Warrior. Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
avionics!

Steve,
I forgot to mention that I had heard of the Elite program before
but did not want to buy it because of the cost (I already own several
versions of MS FS and X-plane). After visiting a flight school and
got a chance to checkout their Elite program (with the avionic stacks
and a CFII, you can log sim time - the program is the same as the
'home' version), I decided it was worth the money and got it. It is
extremely useful when use in conjunction with Elite excellent training
syllabus which start from the basic instrument settings, scanning
practice, oscar pattern etc. to approaches. Once finish with the
lesson, you can compare your tracks with the program tracks (including
the vertical dimension) to evaluate your progress. Elite also sells
several different ATC scenarios which are very helpful for IFR ATC
communication. We had our instrument ratings in May 05 and each had
logged close to 100hrs of instrument time (actual and simulated) since
then in our Cardinal. We still use the Elite program every so often
to practice a new approach at a new airport or just to sharpen our
skills when the weather is too crappy to fly (we had just shoveled a
foot of snow today!).

Hai Longworth

"Longworth" > wrote

>we had just shoveled a foot of snow today!).

Dang! I know lots of people will want to shoot me for this, but it has been
several years since we have seen a real snow. Would you mind sending some
of that snow our way? <g>
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:31:36 -0800, wrote
(in article . com>):

> On Feb 14, 5:02 pm, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:40:31 -0800, wrote
>> (in article . com>):
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 7:22 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>
>>> You know using the autopilot in the simulator to just hold altitude is
>>> one thing I haven't thought about. The only autopilot I have in the
>>> 'real' plane is a single axis (heading only) which I'm not using while
>>> learning the rating. Very good idea!
>>
>> I would recommend becoming at least familiar with using it IFR. The examiner
>> might expect you to use it, even. A little practice wouldn't hurt.
>>
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> Actually I belong to a flying club. There are two planes that I will
> be using. A Warrior (no autopilot, no ADF, no DME, no GPS, no backup
> vacuum) and a Dakota (single axis autopilot, ADF, DME, Garmin 430 GPS,
> with backup vacuum). I will be using the Warrior for the check ride
> since no ADF means no ADF approaches ;-)
>
> After getting the rating I will probably be using the Dakota on real
> IFR trips just based on safety, but it's cheaper to practice in the
> Warrior. Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
> avionics!
>
>

Sounds like a plan.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Mxsmanic wrote:

I have to disagree with you here. If you rely on autopilot all the
time, the day will come when the autopilot goes on strike in the soup.
Good luck keeping the shiny side up, staying ahead of the airplane, and
keeping your situational awareness if you aren't proficient at
hand-flying on instruments. There's no way to maintain that proficiency
without doing it. There are many pilots who've perished when George
went on strike in the soup and the pilot wasn't proficient with
hand-flying in the soup.

I use the auto-pilot to reduce my workload when I am attending to other
tasks, and for that it is a gread load reducer. In a cross country
flight, there is a lot of time spent when you are not particularly busy,
and that is a good time to pull the plug on George and get some good old
hand flying time in.

Mxmanic, do you have an instrument rating? Your posts regarding user
fees make it sound to me like you don't even have a PPL.

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message ...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
> Mxmanic, do you have an instrument rating? Your posts regarding user
> fees make it sound to me like you don't even have a PPL.

Ray, I think you deciphered the code! :-)

> > I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been
my
> > experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite.
Hard
> > to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.
> >
> >
> I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
> pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
> lesson (or two or three).
>
I have read that the old Link Trainers were very sensitive in pitch, and
also much more slippery than the aircraft they were intended to train
for--such as B17's. In the case of the Link, I presume that was by design;
however I have difficulty believing that MSFS would have been done that way
deliberately.

I have no experience in the Link, or in any of the PC based sims. I am
simply curious and inviting comment.

Peter

On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I don't want to have my life dependent on a working autopilot, so I am
> > purposely avoiding it for now.
>
> If you have a choice between a working autopilot and nothing, the working
> autopilot is generally preferable.
>
> Your life depends on an autopilot each time you board a commercial flight,
> particularly if it's not a U.S. airline.
>
> In IMC, you use all the resources you have in order to not get killed.
> Eschewing the autopilot because you resent automation will put you at a
> disadvantage if you are stuck in IMC and the autopilot can save you but you
> can't remember how to use it.

I have nothing at all against autopilots; I think they are great. In
fact I love all technology which makes life easier and safer. Since I
won't be flying a commercial airline with redundant everything, I want
a way to mitigate the effects of single points of failure. Some non-
redundant items I can't do anything about (one fuel supply, one
engine, one pilot), but the ones I can I will. I have used the
autopilot flying VMC, and plan to become proficient flying with it in
IMC as well. Autopilots (at least the single axis one in the Dakota)
are just not that hard to use. I don't want to have to depend on
it. I think I will be a better and safer pilot if I can fly safely
and proficiently without all but the very basics.

My comments about the use of the autopilot are for my training, not
for actual use (especially when my family is on board).
>
> > I understand that the airplane doesn't
> > know if it's in the clouds, but I can sure tell. Being able to fly
> > without an autopilot, and using only the instruments as a reference is
> > a HUGE part of my training.
>
> Perhaps I've not made myself clear. You use the instruments to assess your
> situation. You use your autopilot to carry out your commands. The autopilot
> is not a reference or a source of information; it is a work-saving device.
> When you have lots of complex instruments to scan, it's very handy to have
> something that will fly the aircraft for you based on your instructions.
> There's no advantage to flying the plane by hand IFR if you have an autopilot.
> And flying IFR is not the time to practice controlling the aircraft; if you
> don't already know how to do that, trying to learn in IMC will lead to your
> premature demise.

I have 250+ hours in VMC. I know how to control an aircraft. In VMC
you have this big horizon out the window available to judge your
attitude. In IMC, you just have the instruments. You have to learn
to ignore all physical sensations (no flying by the seat of your pants
here), and trust your instruments. The first part of every instrument
training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
airplane first and foremost. An autopilot will do this for you, but
that's no excuse for not knowing how to do it yourself. I don't want
to die from stupidity!

>
> > That said, once I have my rating I will take advantage of everything
> > (autopilot, handheld GPS) at my disposal. But I still intend to
> > practice partial panel, no autopilot, no GPS so I don't get too rusty.
>
> Try to make the distinction between sources of information and control
> mechanisms. IFR is all about getting the right information; it's not about
> controlling the aircraft.

I think both are important. In fact if you can't control the
airplane, but you know everything else about your situational
awareness and what exact procedures to follow, you will die knowing
exactly where you are buried.
>
> > It sure is a lot more interesting when all you have are the "steam
> > gauges". But I agree with you that autopilots do make life easier
> > (and safer).
>
> Autopilots and gauges are two different things. See above. Flying on
> autopilot doesn't relieve you of the need to watch your instruments, it just
> relieves you of the need to continually fly the airplane. Turning the
> autopilot off doesn't make you any better at reading the instruments, either.

The PIC is always responsible for the safety on his/her ship, and of
course that includes monitoring the gauges to make sure the autopilot
is doing it's job. But what happens when you notice it isn't behaving
properly and you have to pull the breaker? That's why it's important
to have a backup plan.
>
> > When your autopilot breaks, there is also difficulty in actually doing
> > it.
>
> If you can control the aircraft in VFR, you can control it in IFR. If you
> can't control the aircraft, you belong on the ground.

Different skill sets are required to control the airplane precisely
using instrument reference alone, versus looking out the window.
>
> If your autopilot is not broken, there's no shame in using it. That's what it
> is there for.

I would not be ashamed to use the autopilot. I'm just talking about
training here. I would be ashamed to have earned my instrument rating
and have to be dependent on the autopilot to be safe. But I doubt
there are any CFII's out there that would let that happen.

>
> > I went to Reality XP's website, and they had a side by side comparison
> > of the "stock" gauges, and their product. Amazing. One of the planes
> > I fly (and will be training in) has the Garmin 430, so I might be
> > downloading that as well. Thanks for the tip.
>
> They were still photos, no? They are really impressive when they are actually
> operating. Silky smooth action, behavior just like the real thing, and no
> buttons or knobs that do not work.

It's a 5 second (or so) flash(?) animation at http://www.reality-
xp.com/products/FLNT/index.htm. Very impressive.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message ...
>> > I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has been
> my
>> > experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and Elite.
> Hard
>> > to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.
>> >
>> >
>> I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
>> pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
>> lesson (or two or three).
>>
> I have read that the old Link Trainers were very sensitive in pitch, and
> also much more slippery than the aircraft they were intended to train
> for--such as B17's. In the case of the Link, I presume that was by design;
> however I have difficulty believing that MSFS would have been done that way
> deliberately.
>
> I have no experience in the Link, or in any of the PC based sims. I am
> simply curious and inviting comment.
>
> Peter
>

Dunno what comments you're looking for, but I have Link time.
For flying, they were *at least* as bad as you said!
Stall/Spin events were an everyday occurrence.
But remember, their purpose was for procedures training,
not flight training. They were good for their purpose.

Keep the same attitude toward the PC sims, and you'll be OK.
Even FlightSafety's twin-Cessna full-motion simulator won't simulate landing.
FlightSafety instructors will issue a flight review in the simulator,
but only after the student certifies the required prior actual aircraft landings.

On Feb 14, 7:32 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Longworth" > wrote
>
> >we had just shoveled a foot of snow today!).
>
> Dang! I know lots of people will want to shoot me for this, but it has been
> several years since we have seen a real snow. Would you mind sending some
> of that snow our way? <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim,
I'd be glad to send you several cubic feet of snow. The snow is
free. You just pay the shiping cost ;-)
Hai Longworth

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
>
> I have 250+ hours in VMC. I know how to control an aircraft. In VMC
> you have this big horizon out the window available to judge your
> attitude. In IMC, you just have the instruments. You have to learn
> to ignore all physical sensations (no flying by the seat of your pants
> here), and trust your instruments. The first part of every instrument
> training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
> airplane first and foremost. An autopilot will do this for you, but
> that's no excuse for not knowing how to do it yourself. I don't want
> to die from stupidity!
>

I learned to fly before private pilots received any instrument instruction.
Few of our airplanes had any gyros at all.
In those days, it was drilled into us that a non-instrument pilot,
trapped in IMC, had a life expectancy measured in minutes.
Sounds like you understand that.

On Feb 14, 6:24 pm, "Longworth" > wrote:
> Steve,
> I forgot to mention that I had heard of the Elite program before
> but did not want to buy it because of the cost (I already own several
> versions of MS FS and X-plane). After visiting a flight school and
> got a chance to checkout their Elite program (with the avionic stacks
> and a CFII, you can log sim time - the program is the same as the
> 'home' version), I decided it was worth the money and got it. It is
> extremely useful when use in conjunction with Elite excellent training
> syllabus which start from the basic instrument settings, scanning
> practice, oscar pattern etc. to approaches. Once finish with the
> lesson, you can compare your tracks with the program tracks (including
> the vertical dimension) to evaluate your progress. Elite also sells
> several different ATC scenarios which are very helpful for IFR ATC
> communication. We had our instrument ratings in May 05 and each had
> logged close to 100hrs of instrument time (actual and simulated) since
> then in our Cardinal. We still use the Elite program every so often
> to practice a new approach at a new airport or just to sharpen our
> skills when the weather is too crappy to fly (we had just shoveled a
> foot of snow today!).
>
> Hai Longworth

That's a lot of instrument time! It must be very interesting to be
married to your safety pilot! Talk about CRM!

So did you hand fly while learning with the Elite program? If so, how
hard was it to master?

>>> > I've been told that all sims have overly sensitive pitch. That has
been
>> my
>>> > experience with a Frasca, ASA's Instrument Procedure Trainer, and
Elite.
>> Hard
>>> > to understand why no one fixes it, but apparently they don't.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I haven't tried those simulators, just MSFS. I would be willing to
>>> pay the bucks if it would help. It's a lot cheaper than an extra
>>> lesson (or two or three).
>>>
>> I have read that the old Link Trainers were very sensitive in pitch, and
>> also much more slippery than the aircraft they were intended to train
>> for--such as B17's. In the case of the Link, I presume that was by
design;
>> however I have difficulty believing that MSFS would have been done that
way
>> deliberately.
>>
>> I have no experience in the Link, or in any of the PC based sims. I am
>> simply curious and inviting comment.
>>
>
> Dunno what comments you're looking for, but I have Link time.
> For flying, they were *at least* as bad as you said!
> Stall/Spin events were an everyday occurrence.
> But remember, their purpose was for procedures training,
> not flight training. They were good for their purpose.
>
> Keep the same attitude toward the PC sims, and you'll be OK.
> Even FlightSafety's twin-Cessna full-motion simulator won't simulate
landing.
> FlightSafety instructors will issue a flight review in the simulator,
> but only after the student certifies the required prior actual aircraft
landings.
>
I was mostly curious whether the pitch sensitivity and/or slipperiness of
the smaller sims was happenstance or by design.

Of course, you and many others have it exactly right--they are sufficient
for their purpose.

Peter

>Jim,
> I'd be glad to send you several cubic feet of snow. The snow is
> free. You just pay the shiping cost ;-)
> Hai Longworth

OK, but I'll have to check with my bank account, first. Delivery will be
the big problem.

It will need to be delivered by some type of air freight. It should fall
out of the sky in little bits at a time, to accumulate to several inches,
over a wide area.

Perhaps we can get Mortimer to deliver it, somehow? <g>
--
Jim in NC

Steve,
Our Cardinal just have the basic instrument avionics (2 nav/com,
one with glideslope, marker beacon & ADF) . With two instrument rated
pilots, we have not felt the need to add an autopilot so hand flying
is a given. In long cross country trips, I sometimes find it is fun
to challenge myself to stay within 2 degrees of heading, 2 knots of
airspeed and 20 feet in altitude. I try to do the same while
practicing with Elite and it is very satisfying to see nice straight
tracks.

We fly between 200 to 300 hrs per year with less than half in VFR
mainly for sight seeing, photography etc.. BTW, I just bought Rick a
18-200mm VR Nikkor lens and it takes amazingly sharp aerial pictures
with his D50 as seen in this link
http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?109gbc

I think the disciplines that I get from instrument flying have made
me a better VFR pilot. Of course, it is a different kind of flying
and I don't glue my eyes to the gauges in VFR but I think I am more in
tune, more sensitive to the plane speed, pitch etc. Although flying
a sim does not give you the physical feedback, it does help with
forming good flying habits and maintaining discipline.
Good luck with your training. The IFR ticket is a great thing to
have.

Hai Longworth

> Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
> avionics!

Do practice GPS approaches, and all approaches with the Garmin. If you
are not familiar with the box, it -will- bite you.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> I was mostly curious whether the pitch sensitivity and/or slipperiness of
> the smaller sims was happenstance or by design.

Part of it may be due to the limited travel of the control yoke in a sim.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
> > avionics!
>
> Do practice GPS approaches, and all approaches with the Garmin. If you
> are not familiar with the box, it -will- bite you.
>
> Jose
> --
> Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
> follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
> understands this holds the world in his hands.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I've only done GPS approaches on the simulator so far. The interface
seems so unintuitive, but everything gets easier with practice. I
definitely plan to include the GPS in my arsenal. I'm hoping the club
will spring for the new WAAS upgrade, so I can experiment with the new
LNAV/VNAV and LPV approaches.

On Feb 14, 9:53 pm, "Longworth" > wrote:
> Steve,
> Our Cardinal just have the basic instrument avionics (2 nav/com,
> one with glideslope, marker beacon & ADF) . With two instrument rated
> pilots, we have not felt the need to add an autopilot so hand flying
> is a given. In long cross country trips, I sometimes find it is fun
> to challenge myself to stay within 2 degrees of heading, 2 knots of
> airspeed and 20 feet in altitude. I try to do the same while
> practicing with Elite and it is very satisfying to see nice straight
> tracks.
>
> We fly between 200 to 300 hrs per year with less than half in VFR
> mainly for sight seeing, photography etc.. BTW, I just bought Rick a
> 18-200mm VR Nikkor lens and it takes amazingly sharp aerial pictures
> with his D50 as seen in this link
> http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?109gbc
>
> I think the disciplines that I get from instrument flying have made
> me a better VFR pilot. Of course, it is a different kind of flying
> and I don't glue my eyes to the gauges in VFR but I think I am more in
> tune, more sensitive to the plane speed, pitch etc. Although flying
> a sim does not give you the physical feedback, it does help with
> forming good flying habits and maintaining discipline.
> Good luck with your training. The IFR ticket is a great thing to
> have.
>
> Hai Longworth

You are a very precise pilot indeed. I hope someday to be able to
come close to those standards.

BTW, the photos are fantastic!

On Feb 14, 8:14 pm, "John R. Copeland" >
wrote:
> > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > I have 250+ hours in VMC. I know how to control an aircraft. In VMC
> > you have this big horizon out the window available to judge your
> > attitude. In IMC, you just have the instruments. You have to learn
> > to ignore all physical sensations (no flying by the seat of your pants
> > here), and trust your instruments. The first part of every instrument
> > training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
> > airplane first and foremost. An autopilot will do this for you, but
> > that's no excuse for not knowing how to do it yourself. I don't want
> > to die from stupidity!
>
> I learned to fly before private pilots received any instrument instruction.
> Few of our airplanes had any gyros at all.
> In those days, it was drilled into us that a non-instrument pilot,
> trapped in IMC, had a life expectancy measured in minutes.
> Sounds like you understand that.

I've heard the audio tapes of hapless VFR pilots losing control in the
clouds. I don't want to contribute my name to that list!

If you're near a college with an aviation department, see if there's
a way you can register for one of the sim courses. Local college here
has 12 Frasca, 4 ATP, an old DC10 that United donated over
10 years ago and 4 B1900 (don't know the vendor). Trust me, using a
Frasca is a couple orders of magnitude more effective than anything
MS sells. Plus, you get to count the hours towards the rating (which
you can't with MSFS).

Yes, it'll be mroe expensive but you won't pick up bad habits.

Anyone know how to turn on the DME and set the freq? The HELP in
MSFS is completely useless, AFAIK.

Blanche writes:

> Anyone know how to turn on the DME and set the freq? The HELP in
> MSFS is completely useless, AFAIK.

Which aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ray Andraka writes:

> I have to disagree with you here. If you rely on autopilot all the
> time, the day will come when the autopilot goes on strike in the soup.

If you don't use the autopilot, why have it? Everything fails sooner or
later; that doesn't mean that you shouldn't use anything.

> Good luck keeping the shiny side up, staying ahead of the airplane, and
> keeping your situational awareness if you aren't proficient at
> hand-flying on instruments.

Or, more specifically, if you aren't proficient at reading instruments and
flying by hand.

> There's no way to maintain that proficiency
> without doing it. There are many pilots who've perished when George
> went on strike in the soup and the pilot wasn't proficient with
> hand-flying in the soup.

How much practice do you need? Are you just going to let the autopilot gather
dust because you're afraid it might fail someday?

> I use the auto-pilot to reduce my workload when I am attending to other
> tasks, and for that it is a gread load reducer.

And this is all the more true if you are IFR.

> In a cross country
> flight, there is a lot of time spent when you are not particularly busy,
> and that is a good time to pull the plug on George and get some good old
> hand flying time in.

That's a matter of personal preference.

> Mxmanic, do you have an instrument rating? Your posts regarding user
> fees make it sound to me like you don't even have a PPL.

Correct. I only fly in simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

> The first part of every instrument
> training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
> airplane first and foremost.

Does that mean that you can fly VFR without the ability to control the
airplane?

Are you sure you are not confusing the need to know your situation with the
need to control the airplane? The latter is required for any type of flying;
the former is a task that is always required but is achieved differently in
IFR versus VFR.

> I think both are important.

They are. But controlling the aircraft is something you _always_ do, in _any_
type of flying--IFR is no different from VFR in this respect, as all the same
techniques are used. Knowing your situation, on the other hand, requires
vastly different techniques in IFR versus VFR, and that's what you have to
learn for an instrument rating.

> In fact if you can't control the
> airplane, but you know everything else about your situational
> awareness and what exact procedures to follow, you will die knowing
> exactly where you are buried.

Yes, but that's just as true in VFR.

> The PIC is always responsible for the safety on his/her ship, and of
> course that includes monitoring the gauges to make sure the autopilot
> is doing it's job. But what happens when you notice it isn't behaving
> properly and you have to pull the breaker? That's why it's important
> to have a backup plan.

I'd start by turning it off rather than pulling a breaker.

You need backup plans, but the fear of something failing shouldn't prevent you
from using it for normal flights.

> Different skill sets are required to control the airplane precisely
> using instrument reference alone, versus looking out the window.

No. Different skill sets are required for _situational awareness_ in
instrument flight. Controlling the airplane works in exactly the same way in
all types of flight. The rudder and yoke still work the same way, even in
IMC. The aircraft doesn't know or care whether you are in VMC or IMC.

> I would not be ashamed to use the autopilot. I'm just talking about
> training here. I would be ashamed to have earned my instrument rating
> and have to be dependent on the autopilot to be safe. But I doubt
> there are any CFII's out there that would let that happen.

Nobody says that you have to be dependent on an autopilot. But you can
certainly be accustomed to using it. Having an autopilot and not knowing how
to use it can be just as bad as depending on an autopilot and having it fail.

> It's a 5 second (or so) flash(?) animation at http://www.reality-
> xp.com/products/FLNT/index.htm. Very impressive.

Ah, I'm not able to view Flash, but if it convinces you, so much the better.
They are nice gauges.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> I didn't know that scenery was still calculated even when not
> visible. I will dial everything down.
>

Not all of it is, but some. E.g., the dynamic stuff is still calculated
in the background in order to account for when a dynamic item will get
close enough to be shown. Also, the cloud and scenery detail settings
have an impact on how detailed the "fog" is shown, how detailed
lighting effects and shadowing is. These all use a lot of CPU. And
finally, even if you only see fog, the program might still "think"
there is something vaguely visible through the muck - and that needs
calculating, too.

Oh, in case you're impressed by our resident non-expert - the above
information is straight from members of the MSFS programming group,
which I had the pleasure to talk to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
> avionics!
>

Hmm. You won't learn how to use them, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Longworth,

> I think the disciplines that I get from instrument flying have made
> me a better VFR pilot. Of course, it is a different kind of flying
> and I don't glue my eyes to the gauges in VFR but I think I am more in
> tune, more sensitive to the plane speed, pitch etc. Although flying
> a sim does not give you the physical feedback, it does help with
> forming good flying habits and maintaining discipline.
>

I couldn't agree more to all aspects of that paragraph. Excellent
points!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Feb 15, 2:40 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> > Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
> > avionics!
>
> Hmm. You won't learn how to use them, either.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


That was said with tongue in cheek (mostly). Since the money I spend
on flying is finite, I can fly the unsophisticated Warrior longer and
more often than the GPS equipped Dakota. I love the advantages
provided by the GPS and autopilot (The ADF and DME really aren't that
important any more with the 430 in the panel). I fully intend to
become proficient with everything in the panel before attempting to
fly the Dakota in real IMC.

Everything has a balance. I think it's important to be able to fly
just using the basic instrumentation, but not at the cost of ignorance
about 21st (and late 20th) century avionics. Like I mentioned in
another post, I'm hoping the flying club will spring for the WAAS
upgrade for the 430. Our local Class D field is scheduled to get the
new LNAV/VNAV LPV approaches next month. Sounds like fun!

On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
> > avionics!
>
> Do practice GPS approaches, and all approaches with the Garmin. If you
> are not familiar with the box, it -will- bite you.
>
> Jose
> --
> Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
> follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
> understands this holds the world in his hands.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I couldn't agree more. The Garmin isn't something you want to be
fumbling with in IMC.
Thanks

On Feb 15, 12:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > The first part of every instrument
> > training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
> > airplane first and foremost.
>
> Does that mean that you can fly VFR without the ability to control the
> airplane?
>
> Are you sure you are not confusing the need to know your situation with the
> need to control the airplane? The latter is required for any type of flying;
> the former is a task that is always required but is achieved differently in
> IFR versus VFR.
>
> > I think both are important.
>
> They are. But controlling the aircraft is something you _always_ do, in _any_
> type of flying--IFR is no different from VFR in this respect, as all the same
> techniques are used. Knowing your situation, on the other hand, requires
> vastly different techniques in IFR versus VFR, and that's what you have to
> learn for an instrument rating.
>
> > In fact if you can't control the
> > airplane, but you know everything else about your situational
> > awareness and what exact procedures to follow, you will die knowing
> > exactly where you are buried.
>
> Yes, but that's just as true in VFR.
>
> > The PIC is always responsible for the safety on his/her ship, and of
> > course that includes monitoring the gauges to make sure the autopilot
> > is doing it's job. But what happens when you notice it isn't behaving
> > properly and you have to pull the breaker? That's why it's important
> > to have a backup plan.
>
> I'd start by turning it off rather than pulling a breaker.
>
> You need backup plans, but the fear of something failing shouldn't prevent you
> from using it for normal flights.
>
> > Different skill sets are required to control the airplane precisely
> > using instrument reference alone, versus looking out the window.
>
> No. Different skill sets are required for _situational awareness_ in
> instrument flight. Controlling the airplane works in exactly the same way in
> all types of flight. The rudder and yoke still work the same way, even in
> IMC. The aircraft doesn't know or care whether you are in VMC or IMC.
>
> > I would not be ashamed to use the autopilot. I'm just talking about
> > training here. I would be ashamed to have earned my instrument rating
> > and have to be dependent on the autopilot to be safe. But I doubt
> > there are any CFII's out there that would let that happen.
>
> Nobody says that you have to be dependent on an autopilot. But you can
> certainly be accustomed to using it. Having an autopilot and not knowing how
> to use it can be just as bad as depending on an autopilot and having it fail.
>
> > It's a 5 second (or so) flash(?) animation athttp://www.reality-
> > xp.com/products/FLNT/index.htm. Very impressive.
>
> Ah, I'm not able to view Flash, but if it convinces you, so much the better.
> They are nice gauges.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


I noticed you left out the part of my response where I told you this
was for training purposes only.

Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel? And were you able
to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
assigned heading for the entire flight?

Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
nothing ever breaks. How about a simulated power loss followed by an
off-field landing. Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
off. Where can you land?

Should these possibilities be considered?

The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
practice.

If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
airplane.

I agree with you that if you have an autopilot, you should use it.
But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
practice.

On Feb 14, 11:24 pm, Blanche > wrote:
> Anyone know how to turn on the DME and set the freq? The HELP in
> MSFS is completely useless, AFAIK.

The DME in the default 182 uses the frequency selected on either nav1
or nav2 (R1 or R2 toggle slide switch). On my simulator, it's always
on.

On Feb 14, 11:22 pm, Blanche > wrote:
> If you're near a college with an aviation department, see if there's
> a way you can register for one of the sim courses. Local college here
> has 12 Frasca, 4 ATP, an old DC10 that United donated over
> 10 years ago and 4 B1900 (don't know the vendor). Trust me, using a
> Frasca is a couple orders of magnitude more effective than anything
> MS sells. Plus, you get to count the hours towards the rating (which
> you can't with MSFS).
>
> Yes, it'll be mroe expensive but you won't pick up bad habits.

A few years ago I participated in a study at the University of
Illinois. They were seeing how long VFR pilots could last in IMC.
It wasn't a Frasca simulator (I don't remember what kind it was), but
the outside view was displayed by 3 projection screens.

Somehow I managed to live :-)

I didn't know that these simulators were open to the public. Do you
have to enroll in a class in order to use them?

writes:

> Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
> IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel?

Not that I can remember. However, that's not a bad idea; I'll have to try it
sometime.

In general, if there's an autopilot, I'll use it for a trip of any length, and
all the aircraft I like have autopilots.

> And were you able
> to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
> assigned heading for the entire flight?

I can do both indefinitely, without any visual information, but I wouldn't fly
an entire flight that way unless it were extremely short. It takes a long
time to trim the aircraft out of phugoid excursions. If nothing more, I'll
use the autopilot to trim.

> Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
> nothing ever breaks.

If you can hold course and altitude in VFR, you can hold it in IFR, so if you
can fly at all, the exercise is not that important.

> How about a simulated power loss followed by an
> off-field landing.

In IMC? I congratulate you if you've managed that.

I've simulated single- and double-engine failures on quite a few occasions.
It's difficult but not impossible to deal with. The only really bad time is
on take-off, which, in some cases, doesn't really allow for much recovery.

> Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
> off. Where can you land?

I'm not sure why a power loss in the pattern would be specifically
challenging, as compared to a power loss in any other phase of flight besides
take-off and landing.

I've done engine failures after take-off, and I've done engine failures at
altitude.

> Should these possibilities be considered?

Yes, especially in GA aircraft, with their rickety powerplants.

> The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
> standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
> just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
> expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
> practice.

That's the whole advantage to the simulator.

> If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
> to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
> my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
> Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
> airplane.

A lot of things can be failed even in MSFS. And some aircraft can be damaged
by various things and then you must deal with the damage.

> But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
> practice.

But if you can fly VFR you _already know_ how to do that. It's no different
for IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 15, 2:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
> > IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel?
>
> Not that I can remember. However, that's not a bad idea; I'll have to try it
> sometime.
>
> In general, if there's an autopilot, I'll use it for a trip of any length, and
> all the aircraft I like have autopilots.
>
> > And were you able
> > to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
> > assigned heading for the entire flight?
>
> I can do both indefinitely, without any visual information, but I wouldn't fly
> an entire flight that way unless it were extremely short. It takes a long
> time to trim the aircraft out of phugoid excursions. If nothing more, I'll
> use the autopilot to trim.
>
> > Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
> > nothing ever breaks.
>
> If you can hold course and altitude in VFR, you can hold it in IFR, so if you
> can fly at all, the exercise is not that important.
>
> > How about a simulated power loss followed by an
> > off-field landing.
>
> In IMC? I congratulate you if you've managed that.
>
> I've simulated single- and double-engine failures on quite a few occasions.
> It's difficult but not impossible to deal with. The only really bad time is
> on take-off, which, in some cases, doesn't really allow for much recovery.
>
> > Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
> > off. Where can you land?
>
> I'm not sure why a power loss in the pattern would be specifically
> challenging, as compared to a power loss in any other phase of flight besides
> take-off and landing.
>
> I've done engine failures after take-off, and I've done engine failures at
> altitude.
>
> > Should these possibilities be considered?
>
> Yes, especially in GA aircraft, with their rickety powerplants.
>
> > The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
> > standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
> > just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
> > expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
> > practice.
>
> That's the whole advantage to the simulator.
>
> > If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
> > to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
> > my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
> > Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
> > airplane.
>
> A lot of things can be failed even in MSFS. And some aircraft can be damaged
> by various things and then you must deal with the damage.
>
> > But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
> > practice.
>
> But if you can fly VFR you _already know_ how to do that. It's no different
> for IFR.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
congratulate you! I now understand why you think controlling an
aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.

It isn't that easy for me. I find it much harder, especially when
distracted by looking up and studying procedures, and radio work.
Maybe with enough practice it will also become second nature to me.

Steve

How would you know? You happen to be correct in the staqtement below,
but the generalization you made prior was silly. Visual cues are
different in IMC and VFR.

>
> The manipulation of controls required to fly the plane is identical for both
> IFR and VFR.
>

On Feb 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > writes:
> > > Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
> > > IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel?
>
> > Not that I can remember. However, that's not a bad idea; I'll have to try it
> > sometime.
>
> > In general, if there's an autopilot, I'll use it for a trip of any length, and
> > all the aircraft I like have autopilots.
>
> > > And were you able
> > > to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
> > > assigned heading for the entire flight?
>
> > I can do both indefinitely, without any visual information, but I wouldn't fly
> > an entire flight that way unless it were extremely short. It takes a long
> > time to trim the aircraft out of phugoid excursions. If nothing more, I'll
> > use the autopilot to trim.
>
> > > Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
> > > nothing ever breaks.
>
> > If you can hold course and altitude in VFR, you can hold it in IFR, so if you
> > can fly at all, the exercise is not that important.
>
> > > How about a simulated power loss followed by an
> > > off-field landing.
>
> > In IMC? I congratulate you if you've managed that.
>
> > I've simulated single- and double-engine failures on quite a few occasions.
> > It's difficult but not impossible to deal with. The only really bad time is
> > on take-off, which, in some cases, doesn't really allow for much recovery.
>
> > > Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
> > > off. Where can you land?
>
> > I'm not sure why a power loss in the pattern would be specifically
> > challenging, as compared to a power loss in any other phase of flight besides
> > take-off and landing.
>
> > I've done engine failures after take-off, and I've done engine failures at
> > altitude.
>
> > > Should these possibilities be considered?
>
> > Yes, especially in GA aircraft, with their rickety powerplants.
>
> > > The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
> > > standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
> > > just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
> > > expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
> > > practice.
>
> > That's the whole advantage to the simulator.
>
> > > If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
> > > to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
> > > my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
> > > Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
> > > airplane.
>
> > A lot of things can be failed even in MSFS. And some aircraft can be damaged
> > by various things and then you must deal with the damage.
>
> > > But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
> > > practice.
>
> > But if you can fly VFR you _already know_ how to do that. It's no different
> > for IFR.
>
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
> congratulate you! I now understand why you think controlling an
> aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.
>
> It isn't that easy for me. I find it much harder, especially when
> distracted by looking up and studying procedures, and radio work.
> Maybe with enough practice it will also become second nature to me.
>
> Steve


Folks,

This has been a real learning experience for me. I have been
following these newsgroups for awhile, but this was my first post. I
appreciate everyone's great advice, but I am through defending my
philosophy regarding instrument training to non-pilots. All pilots
(even student pilots, and especially CFII's) are welcome to critique
everything I write, and I will carefully evaluate what they have to
say and respond accordingly.

Thank you.

Steve

On 02/15/07 15:11, wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > writes:
>> > > Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
>> > > IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel?
>>
>> > Not that I can remember. However, that's not a bad idea; I'll have to try it
>> > sometime.
>>
>> > In general, if there's an autopilot, I'll use it for a trip of any length, and
>> > all the aircraft I like have autopilots.
>>
>> > > And were you able
>> > > to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
>> > > assigned heading for the entire flight?
>>
>> > I can do both indefinitely, without any visual information, but I wouldn't fly
>> > an entire flight that way unless it were extremely short. It takes a long
>> > time to trim the aircraft out of phugoid excursions. If nothing more, I'll
>> > use the autopilot to trim.
>>
>> > > Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
>> > > nothing ever breaks.
>>
>> > If you can hold course and altitude in VFR, you can hold it in IFR, so if you
>> > can fly at all, the exercise is not that important.
>>
>> > > How about a simulated power loss followed by an
>> > > off-field landing.
>>
>> > In IMC? I congratulate you if you've managed that.
>>
>> > I've simulated single- and double-engine failures on quite a few occasions.
>> > It's difficult but not impossible to deal with. The only really bad time is
>> > on take-off, which, in some cases, doesn't really allow for much recovery.
>>
>> > > Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
>> > > off. Where can you land?
>>
>> > I'm not sure why a power loss in the pattern would be specifically
>> > challenging, as compared to a power loss in any other phase of flight besides
>> > take-off and landing.
>>
>> > I've done engine failures after take-off, and I've done engine failures at
>> > altitude.
>>
>> > > Should these possibilities be considered?
>>
>> > Yes, especially in GA aircraft, with their rickety powerplants.
>>
>> > > The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
>> > > standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
>> > > just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
>> > > expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
>> > > practice.
>>
>> > That's the whole advantage to the simulator.
>>
>> > > If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
>> > > to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
>> > > my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
>> > > Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
>> > > airplane.
>>
>> > A lot of things can be failed even in MSFS. And some aircraft can be damaged
>> > by various things and then you must deal with the damage.
>>
>> > > But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
>> > > practice.
>>
>> > But if you can fly VFR you _already know_ how to do that. It's no different
>> > for IFR.
>>
>> > --
>> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>> If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
>> congratulate you! I now understand why you think controlling an
>> aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.
>>
>> It isn't that easy for me. I find it much harder, especially when
>> distracted by looking up and studying procedures, and radio work.
>> Maybe with enough practice it will also become second nature to me.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> Folks,
>
> This has been a real learning experience for me. I have been
> following these newsgroups for awhile, but this was my first post. I
> appreciate everyone's great advice, but I am through defending my
> philosophy regarding instrument training to non-pilots. All pilots
> (even student pilots, and especially CFII's) are welcome to critique
> everything I write, and I will carefully evaluate what they have to
> say and respond accordingly.

Everyone comes around eventually ;-)

I wouldn't ignore *all* non-pilots, though...

>
> Thank you.
>
> Steve
>
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Tim writes:

> How would you know?

It's so self-evident that I'm surprised you ask the question.

Why would the controls of an airplane behave _differently_ just because of
changing visibility outside the cockpit? It's the same atmosphere, the same
control surfaces, the same airframe, the same powerplants ... obviously they
will operate exactly the same in both VMC and IMC. One need not be a genius
to figure this out, and certainly one need not be a pilot (although it appears
that some pilots _haven't_ figured it out).

> You happen to be correct in the staqtement below,
> but the generalization you made prior was silly. Visual cues are
> different in IMC and VFR.

There are no visual cues in IMC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

> If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
> congratulate you!

Just a question of practice and/or logic.

> I now understand why you think controlling an
> aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.

You don't control an aircraft by instruments. You control an aircraft with
flight controls, such as the rudder and yoke. They work in exactly the same
way in both VMC and IMC.

Instruments provide you with information. They do not control the aircraft,
except on autopilot. And the autopilot works the same in both IMC and VMC.

> It isn't that easy for me. I find it much harder, especially when
> distracted by looking up and studying procedures, and radio work.
> Maybe with enough practice it will also become second nature to me.

You're confusing situational awareness and the gathering of information about
it with the actual act of controlling the aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Tim writes:
>
>
>>How would you know?
>
>
> It's so self-evident that I'm surprised you ask the question.
>
> Why would the controls of an airplane behave _differently_ just because of
> changing visibility outside the cockpit? It's the same atmosphere, the same
> control surfaces, the same airframe, the same powerplants ... obviously they
> will operate exactly the same in both VMC and IMC. One need not be a genius
> to figure this out, and certainly one need not be a pilot (although it appears
> that some pilots _haven't_ figured it out).
>
>
>>You happen to be correct in the staqtement below,
>>but the generalization you made prior was silly. Visual cues are
>>different in IMC and VFR.
>
>
> There are no visual cues in IMC.
>

The controls don't behave differently (unless the airframe is iced up),
but you are neglecting the fact that the pilot is part of the control
loop. In VMC the input to the pilot is far different, with considerably
more information and lots of subtle cues than it is when in IMC. In
IMC, the total input to the pilot is through a few instruments.
Peripheral vision won't help you keep the wings level like it does in
VMC. Because there is much less information available to the pilot, and
his sense of balance can betray that information, it is far more
difficult to maintain the control of an aircraft without the visual cues
you get in VMC. This isn't about basic aircraft control, it is learning
to correctly interpret the instruments to replace the visual cues.
Furthermore, it takes a certain degree of concentration as well as
practice to do it. Now add in turbulent air, having to navigate, having
to set up for an approach, and talking with ATC. Unless you are
proficient on interpreting the instruments, you won't be able to
simultaneously keep control of the aircraft and also accomplish those
peripheral tasks without relying on an autopilot. COnsider the average
lifespan of a non-instrument rated pilot in an inadvertent IMC
encounter. There were studies done where the average time from entry
into IMC to a non-recoverable graveyard spin for non-instrument rated
pilots come out to something like 180 seconds.

I suspect when you are flying your MSFS you are relying more on the
instruments than a real pilot does in VMC, because simply put you don't
have the visual cues on a 2D screen that you get when sitting in a real
cockpit. You are most likely compensating by using the instruments more
than you would in a real airplane, probably without even realizing it.
As a result, when you go IMC on the sim, it isn't as big a shift for you
as it is for a pilot in a real airplane. Try this: cover up or turn off
the instrument display while flying VMC on the computer. See how well
you fare compared to when the instruments are there. Now try flying
into a simulated cloud with the instruments still covered. Tell me how
long you last before you hit the ground.

Ray Andraka writes:

> The controls don't behave differently (unless the airframe is iced up),
> but you are neglecting the fact that the pilot is part of the control
> loop.

No, the pilot is independent of both the controls and the instruments. He is
the interface between the two domains, not part of them.

> In VMC the input to the pilot is far different, with considerably
> more information and lots of subtle cues than it is when in IMC. In
> IMC, the total input to the pilot is through a few instruments.

Yes.

> Peripheral vision won't help you keep the wings level like it does in
> VMC. Because there is much less information available to the pilot, and
> his sense of balance can betray that information, it is far more
> difficult to maintain the control of an aircraft without the visual cues
> you get in VMC.

It is far more difficult for the pilot to decide what control inputs to make.
The control inputs themselves are the same.

> This isn't about basic aircraft control, it is learning
> to correctly interpret the instruments to replace the visual cues.

Yes.

> I suspect when you are flying your MSFS you are relying more on the
> instruments than a real pilot does in VMC, because simply put you don't
> have the visual cues on a 2D screen that you get when sitting in a real
> cockpit.

Agreed.

> You are most likely compensating by using the instruments more
> than you would in a real airplane, probably without even realizing it.

Probably.

> As a result, when you go IMC on the sim, it isn't as big a shift for you
> as it is for a pilot in a real airplane.

That depends on what the pilot of the real airplane is accustomed to. Some
real pilots might well be instrument oriented, too, especially if they fly
large aircraft (and particularly if they have learned to fly _only_ large
aircraft, which is difficult in the U.S. but not out of the realm of
possibility in other countries).

> Try this: cover up or turn off
> the instrument display while flying VMC on the computer. See how well
> you fare compared to when the instruments are there. Now try flying
> into a simulated cloud with the instruments still covered. Tell me how
> long you last before you hit the ground.

Hmm ... interesting. I'll try it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> There are no visual cues in IMC.
>
Like Hell there aren't!

Mxsmanic wrote:
<snip>
>
> You're confusing situational awareness and the gathering of information about
> it with the actual act of controlling the aircraft.
>

You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people based
on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
MSFS, but it is a different world - that of real flying in real airplanes.

Mxsmanic wrote:
<snip>
>
> You're confusing situational awareness and the gathering of information about
> it with the actual act of controlling the aircraft.
>

You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people based
on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
MSFS, but it is a different world - that of real flying in real airplanes.

Peter Dohm writes:

> Like Hell there aren't!

Which visual cues do you have in IMC?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tim writes:

> You're confusing reality with a game.

I'm not talking about a game.

> And worse, lecturing people based on your small world.

The more I read from some pilots here, the more I recognize how clueless some
of them really are.

> I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
> MSFS, but it is a different world - that of real flying
> in real airplanes.

I'm less and less convinced of this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

> There are no visual cues in IMC.
>

Yeah, right. That's why it's called blind flying, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tim,

> I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
> MSFS
>

You don't? Actually, based on his postings and his problems with
reality, I highly doubt that he is as well versed with MSFS as he
believes he is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Feb 15, 8:55 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> There are no visual cues in IMC.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Oh, for God's sake, have you any sense at all of how wrong you are, of
how ignorate you continue to demonstrate yourself to be?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Ray Andraka writes:
>
>> The controls don't behave differently (unless the airframe is iced up),
>> but you are neglecting the fact that the pilot is part of the control
>> loop.
>
>No, the pilot is independent of both the controls and the instruments. He is
>the interface between the two domains, not part of them.

That phrase is a very original way of restating that "the pilot is
part of the control loop". Ray did not say that the pilot is "part of
the controls", or "part of the instruments" ...

Time to increase the population of my killfile...

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

Tim wrote:
> You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people based
> on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
> MSFS....

Actually, he can't. He's stated several times that he has
trouble controlling the A/C in MSFS and needs to use the
autopilot.

F--

Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
depending on where you live. Then report your experience. You might
even find that people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say.

Since you love simulators so much, find a school or instructor with a
frasca simulator and spend an hour in it. It is loggable sim time - as
opposed to msfs.

As others have pointed out - this is res.aviation.ifr - not
rec.simulations.ifr or other similar game newsgroups.

I own a plane. I fly - I fly IFR. I own MSFS and I have used it. I
actually have experience about stuff you pretend to know about. Your
semantics and pedantry are amusing, but still have no basis in reality.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>You're confusing reality with a game.
>
>
> I'm not talking about a game.
>
>
>>And worse, lecturing people based on your small world.
>
>
> The more I read from some pilots here, the more I recognize how clueless some
> of them really are.
>
>
>>I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
>>MSFS, but it is a different world - that of real flying
>>in real airplanes.
>
>
> I'm less and less convinced of this.
>

TxSrv wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
>> You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people
>> based on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus
>> out of MSFS....
>
>
> Actually, he can't. He's stated several times that he has trouble
> controlling the A/C in MSFS and needs to use the autopilot.
>
> F--


I was being polite.

Tim,

> Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
> instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
> depending on where you live.
>

We're moving in circles here. If you google the group a little, you'll
find out we've been through these suggestions. MX is deadly afraid of
flying, but similarly afraid to admit it. He'll never fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tim writes:

> Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
> instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
> depending on where you live.

I was considering that, but then it occurred to me that the instructor might
be like many people in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want to be stuck
thousands of feet in the air with someone like that.

> Then report your experience. You might
> even find that people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say.

Why? The experience wouldn't really change anything.

In reality, they would find some _other_ initiation ritual to separate
themselves from myself.

> Since you love simulators so much, find a school or instructor with a
> frasca simulator and spend an hour in it. It is loggable sim time - as
> opposed to msfs.

I'd want a full-motion simulator, and apparently those are rare for general
aviation. If it doesn't move, I may as well stick with MSFS; just adding a
plastic imitation of a cockpit doesn't change much.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> > I was mostly curious whether the pitch sensitivity and/or slipperiness
of
> > the smaller sims was happenstance or by design.
>
> Part of it may be due to the limited travel of the control yoke in a sim.
>
> Jose
> --
Thanks for pointing that out.

I have not been using a sim, but have seen the equipement and should have
noticed that the travel is about half of what I had in real basic trainers.

As Sherlock Holmes might have phrased it, I saw but did not observe.

Peter

OK, I finally came to the conclusion that you are an idiot. Thanks for
the wonderful discussion. Have fun playing with your games.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
>>instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
>>depending on where you live.
>
>
> I was considering that, but then it occurred to me that the instructor might
> be like many people in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want to be stuck
> thousands of feet in the air with someone like that.
>
>
>>Then report your experience. You might
>>even find that people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say.
>
>
> Why? The experience wouldn't really change anything.
>
> In reality, they would find some _other_ initiation ritual to separate
> themselves from myself.
>
>
>>Since you love simulators so much, find a school or instructor with a
>>frasca simulator and spend an hour in it. It is loggable sim time - as
>>opposed to msfs.
>
>
> I'd want a full-motion simulator, and apparently those are rare for general
> aviation. If it doesn't move, I may as well stick with MSFS; just adding a
> plastic imitation of a cockpit doesn't change much.
>

On Feb 15, 5:11 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > writes:
> > > > Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
> > > > IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel?
>
> > > Not that I can remember. However, that's not a bad idea; I'll have to try it
> > > sometime.
>
> > > In general, if there's an autopilot, I'll use it for a trip of any length, and
> > > all the aircraft I like have autopilots.
>
> > > > And were you able
> > > > to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
> > > > assigned heading for the entire flight?
>
> > > I can do both indefinitely, without any visual information, but I wouldn't fly
> > > an entire flight that way unless it were extremely short. It takes a long
> > > time to trim the aircraft out of phugoid excursions. If nothing more, I'll
> > > use the autopilot to trim.
>
> > > > Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
> > > > nothing ever breaks.
>
> > > If you can hold course and altitude in VFR, you can hold it in IFR, so if you
> > > can fly at all, the exercise is not that important.
>
> > > > How about a simulated power loss followed by an
> > > > off-field landing.
>
> > > In IMC? I congratulate you if you've managed that.
>
> > > I've simulated single- and double-engine failures on quite a few occasions.
> > > It's difficult but not impossible to deal with. The only really bad time is
> > > on take-off, which, in some cases, doesn't really allow for much recovery.
>
> > > > Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
> > > > off. Where can you land?
>
> > > I'm not sure why a power loss in the pattern would be specifically
> > > challenging, as compared to a power loss in any other phase of flight besides
> > > take-off and landing.
>
> > > I've done engine failures after take-off, and I've done engine failures at
> > > altitude.
>
> > > > Should these possibilities be considered?
>
> > > Yes, especially in GA aircraft, with their rickety powerplants.
>
> > > > The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
> > > > standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
> > > > just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
> > > > expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
> > > > practice.
>
> > > That's the whole advantage to the simulator.
>
> > > > If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
> > > > to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
> > > > my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
> > > > Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
> > > > airplane.
>
> > > A lot of things can be failed even in MSFS. And some aircraft can be damaged
> > > by various things and then you must deal with the damage.
>
> > > > But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
> > > > practice.
>
> > > But if you can fly VFR you _already know_ how to do that. It's no different
> > > for IFR.
>
> > > --
> > > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
> > congratulate you! I now understand why you think controlling an
> > aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.
>
> > It isn't that easy for me. I find it much harder, especially when
> > distracted by looking up and studying procedures, and radio work.
> > Maybe with enough practice it will also become second nature to me.
>
> > Steve
>
> Folks,
>
> This has been a real learning experience for me. I have been
> following these newsgroups for awhile, but this was my first post. I
> appreciate everyone's great advice, but I am through defending my
> philosophy regarding instrument training to non-pilots. All pilots
> (even student pilots, and especially CFII's) are welcome to critique
> everything I write, and I will carefully evaluate what they have to
> say and respond accordingly.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Steve


Thank you everyone for helping me. I wanted to post one last time to
document my results.

Lessons learned:

My computer, graphics card, and display settings were fine. The
default gauges on MSFS were the problem. They are inherently slow
(they only display 1 degree increments by design). Reality XP Flight
Line T-series gauges fixed this problem, but it is tedious to
install. Cost $19.95. I also loaded the GNS430 simulator from the
same site. Cost $29.95.

I applied silicon grease to my control yoke. It helped somewhat, but
it would be nice to have it always come to "rest" at the same spot.
It's hard to get it back to the same pitch position after a control
input. I usually can't and then I have to retrim. Stronger springs?
More or different kind of lubrication? Cost $7.95

I downloaded RealTrim. This is a unique way to trim on MSFS where you
hold the yoke at the correct pitch, then while pressing the assigned
"trim" key", you release the pressure on the yoke. Cool. Cost FREE!

The consensus seems to be that the most important benefit from MSFS
for instrument training is procedures training. It also can help with
your scan. I now completely agree. I will still try to get the yoke
to work better to make it more realistic, but MSFS can never
completely simulate the real feel (or experience) of flying a real
airplane!

I haven't sprung for the $250 required for the Elite simulator and
training manual. I still might in the future, but I'll try to get by
with MSFS for now. It sounds like the investment sure paid off for
Hai, so I may have to revisit this decision later.

The nearest aviation school is about 60 miles away (University of
Illinois), so I probably won't be using their fancy simulators too
often. It would still be fun to "audit" one of the classes. Thanks
Blanche!

Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond to my post. I didn't
mean for it to turn into a big online argument :-(

Steve

wrote:
>
>
> I haven't sprung for the $250 required for the Elite simulator and
> training manual. I still might in the future, but I'll try to get by
> with MSFS for now. It sounds like the investment sure paid off for
> Hai, so I may have to revisit this decision later.
>

FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. I have a very old
version of Elite (4.0?) and a CH serial yoke. I found it easiest to use
the autopilot to set the trim and to more or less avoid making pitch
changes with the yoke. There is a way to manufacture a much more
realistically trimmed yoke, but I haven't seen any that do it.

Ray Andraka wrote:
> FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
> not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. ....

I don't find it difficult to trim at all even with wind shear and wind
gusts turned on. I do have two of the buttons on the top of the
joystick set for trim. I click in either direction gets it fine tuned.
Maybe it is your method of trimming? Normally in a real plane, you
hold the pitch so you have 0 on the VSI and then trim for zero force.
In MSFS, I do the same for more gross trimming and then end up flying by
trim for the fine tuning. This is obviously wrong technique for a real
plane but as long as I know the difference I don't find it necessarily
bad.

BTW, I found trimming correctly to be one of the most important
techniques learned in IFR (and VFR) flying with regards to being able to
fly the plane completely hands-free which lets you do all the
"paperwork" (charts, plates, setting avionics, etc.) much more easily.

Use MSFS for procedures and also to fine tune your scan and your 'gain'
(sensitivity) for doing approaches to perfection. I regularly fly CAT
II approaches partial panel and without the aid of a G430 (DTK vs. TRK).
Did this recently after a few beers. ;-) My friends thought it was
easy to do since the needles don't move at all. :) I wouldn't do this
for real but if schitt hits the fan, I know I did some pseudo-training
for this even if it doesn't count for currency. Next up is planning
(rate of descents) and doing approaches with an engine failure. I'll do
it on MSFS and then on my next (or sooner) BFR do it in the plane.


Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:

> Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>> FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
>> not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. ....
>
>
> I don't find it difficult to trim at all even with wind shear and wind
> gusts turned on. I do have two of the buttons on the top of the
> joystick set for trim. I click in either direction gets it fine tuned.
> Maybe it is your method of trimming? Normally in a real plane, you
> hold the pitch so you have 0 on the VSI and then trim for zero force. In
> MSFS, I do the same for more gross trimming and then end up flying by
> trim for the fine tuning. This is obviously wrong technique for a real
> plane but as long as I know the difference I don't find it necessarily bad.
>
> BTW, I found trimming correctly to be one of the most important
> techniques learned in IFR (and VFR) flying with regards to being able to
> fly the plane completely hands-free which lets you do all the
> "paperwork" (charts, plates, setting avionics, etc.) much more easily.
>
> Use MSFS for procedures and also to fine tune your scan and your 'gain'
> (sensitivity) for doing approaches to perfection. I regularly fly CAT
> II approaches partial panel and without the aid of a G430 (DTK vs. TRK).
> Did this recently after a few beers. ;-) My friends thought it was
> easy to do since the needles don't move at all. :) I wouldn't do this
> for real but if schitt hits the fan, I know I did some pseudo-training
> for this even if it doesn't count for currency. Next up is planning
> (rate of descents) and doing approaches with an engine failure. I'll do
> it on MSFS and then on my next (or sooner) BFR do it in the plane.
>
>
> Gerald


To be fair, my Elite is a very old copy (ca 1994). IIRC, it runs on
DOS, not under windows. I stopped upgrading when I got my instrument
ticket because I found I wasn't really using it very often and the
upgrades I did do didn't add much for the money. The yoke is an old CH
products yoke that connects to an old PC game port (it is connected to
the AzureSoft interface box for Elite). I found that it was very
difficult to get it trimmed up using the trim buttons, partly because
there was no force feedback in the yoke, partly because the yoke did not
output the same pitch when the yoke got pushed in or pulled out and then
returned to the same position. WIth that in mind, the only way to
effectively trim it without spending an inordinate amount of time
trimming was to engage the altitude hold, let it trim it up and then
release the altitude hold. Basically, I found Elite (we're talking
early version again here) to be superb for procedures training and
developing your scan. The aircraft model seemed to be pretty good as
well, and I understand that has been improved drastically. I didn't
bother with rudder pedals, as I wasn't interested really in perfection
as far as the control inputs.

As far as the real plane goes, yeah, getting it trimmed properly is a
key item for reducing workload. I fly a Cherokee Six with electric trim.
It is very easy to trim for pitch, and once set it'll hold altitude
all day. Good enough that I only went for a single axis AP.