Re: PPL and flight simulators

[Slav Inger]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
> Are simulator hours (I mean "real" simulators, not just a Peecee running Ms
> Flight Simulator) countable as flying hours if the PIC has the PPL and the
> ratings/endorsements necessary to fly the type of aircraft the simulator
> represents? What requirements are necessary for the simulator to be
> recognised as valid? Can a simulator be used in a type rating?
>

Use of approved simulator devices is allowed for training purposes.
When you're a PP acting as PIC and would like to fly the approved sim
and log the hours, my interpretation of FAR 61.57 is that you can do it
and use it later towards a rating or to maintain VFR and IFR currency.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Larry Fransson]

In article >,
Bob Esser > wrote:

> I think you can even get a type rating on some
> simulators.

It happens all the time. I got my Learjet type rating in a simulator.

Different simulators can be used for different amounts of a type rating
checkride depending on their level of certification. Some can be used
for 100% of the checkride. Others can only be used for 80%.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

[BTIZ]

define "real" simulators... there are varying degrees "classes" beyond the
desktop PC, most are usable for IFR training, but as mentioned in a previous
post, you need a CFII with you to log the training, just practice by your
self, although good experience is not creditable towards log book hours or
currency requirements.

BT

"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
...
> Are simulator hours (I mean "real" simulators, not just a Peecee running
Ms
> Flight Simulator) countable as flying hours if the PIC has the PPL and the
> ratings/endorsements necessary to fly the type of aircraft the simulator
> represents? What requirements are necessary for the simulator to be
> recognised as valid? Can a simulator be used in a type rating?
>
> Benjamin
>

[Benjamin Gawert]

BTIZ wrote:

> define "real" simulators...

A fully complete cockpit made of the cockpit parts of the real aircraft,
with front visual system, force feedback, and some simulation of the
g-forces pressing the pilot into the seat. A simulator that shows the
exactly same behavior the real aircraft shows...

> there are varying degrees "classes"
> beyond the desktop PC, most are usable for IFR training, but as
> mentioned in a previous post, you need a CFII with you to log the
> training, just practice by your self, although good experience is not
> creditable towards log book hours or currency requirements.

Right. I just want to know if I would log the sim hours if it would make any
sense when having a PPL. Even if they at least count when making the CPL
somewhen...

Benjamin

[Benjamin Gawert]

Larry Fransson wrote:

>> I think you can even get a type rating on some
>> simulators.
>
> It happens all the time. I got my Learjet type rating in a simulator.

That sound interesting. What requirements does the sim have to be able to to
type ratings on it?

> Different simulators can be used for different amounts of a type
> rating checkride depending on their level of certification. Some can
> be used for 100% of the checkride. Others can only be used for 80%.

Do You know what prerequisites are necessary for a sim being useable for
80%/100% of the checkride?

Benjamin

[JerryK]

Larry knows more about this than I do, but the simulators have different
levels of fidelity. My understanding is these are labeled A-D, which D
being the best. I think to do 100% of the rating it has to be at least
level C, if not D. Check the FAR/AIMs for the details.

I did some time in a MD-88 level D sim and you can feel the expansion strips
as you taxi. Very impressive.

jerry

"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Fransson wrote:
>
> Do You know what prerequisites are necessary for a sim being useable for
> 80%/100% of the checkride?
>
> Benjamin
>

[Bob Gardner]

I don't know what the prices are now, but full-motion sims such as Larry
describes go for several hundred dollars an hour...I used to get an hour in
a 737 sim for Christmas every year from a buddy who worked at a sim center.

Bob Gardner

"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ wrote:
>
> > define "real" simulators...
>
> A fully complete cockpit made of the cockpit parts of the real aircraft,
> with front visual system, force feedback, and some simulation of the
> g-forces pressing the pilot into the seat. A simulator that shows the
> exactly same behavior the real aircraft shows...
>
> > there are varying degrees "classes"
> > beyond the desktop PC, most are usable for IFR training, but as
> > mentioned in a previous post, you need a CFII with you to log the
> > training, just practice by your self, although good experience is not
> > creditable towards log book hours or currency requirements.
>
> Right. I just want to know if I would log the sim hours if it would make
any
> sense when having a PPL. Even if they at least count when making the CPL
> somewhen...
>
> Benjamin
>

[Larry Fransson]

In article >,
"JerryK" > wrote:

> My understanding is these are labeled A-D, which D
> being the best. I think to do 100% of the rating it has to be at least
> level C, if not D. Check the FAR/AIMs for the details.

I can never find the reference when I need it. I don't remember where
it is. I'm not sure if you need a Level C simulator for a 100%
checkride or if Level B will do. In any case, you have to meet certain
experience requirements to receive an unrestricted type rating from a
100% simulator check. They include things like previous type ratings or
applicable experience in actual aircraft. Lacking those prerequisites,
you may receive a type rating that requires something on the order of 15
to 25 hours of "supervised PIC experience" which means essentially that
you are carrying out the duties of PIC under the supervision of a
qualified PIC. Once you have that logged, you take your log book down
to the FSDO, they look at it, and then give you a new temporary
certificate with an unrestricted type rating.

At FlightSafety in Tucson where I go for annual recurrent training, they
have two Lear 35 simulators - one a Level B and one a Level C. The
Level B simulator used to be Level A. They got it certified to Level B
so that they could use it more. Used to be we couldn't take our Part
135 checkrides in anything but the Level C sim because the level A sim
somehow didn't meet the requirements. Last time I was there, they said
something about having upgraded the A to a B so that they could use it
for checkrides.

> I did some time in a MD-88 level D sim and you can feel the expansion strips
> as you taxi. Very impressive.

Level D is supposed to be a much better simulation, and it does
something resembling daylight simulation. It's pretty dark daylight
inside, but certainly better than what they call daylight in a Level C
sim, which is much closer to late dusk than anything else.

I got to fly a 767 simulator a few weeks ago. I'll vouch for its
fidelity to the real thing. When my wife (who doesn't fly except with
me) couldn't remember how to stop after landing, we ended up swerving
down the runway, dragging the left wing, and eventually skidding to a
stop sideways in the grass. I have never dragged a wing in a 767
before, but I imagine the sound we heard was pretty close to what it
would sound like if it really did happen. On the bad landings (which
was most of them - my last one was the only really smooth one, and
that's why it was the last one!), things (and unrestrained people) went
flying around the flight deck. It seemed fairly real to me!

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
...

> That sound interesting. What requirements does the sim have to be able to
to
> type ratings on it?

Level D simulator which basically becomes so real even the weather depiction
landing in low IFR conditions is realistic --- this is a multi-million $
sim.

> Do You know what prerequisites are necessary for a sim being useable for
> 80%/100% of the checkride?

This is listed in a table in the PTS standards.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:jiFPa.717$Je.481@fed1read04...

> define "real" simulators... there are varying degrees "classes" beyond the
> desktop PC, most are usable for IFR training, but as mentioned in a
previous
> post, you need a CFII with you to log the training, just practice by your
> self, although good experience is not creditable towards log book hours or
> currency requirements.

The only device which requires a CFII to make it loggable is a "PCATD,"
which is a personal computer aviation training device -- basically a
computer with a yoke and rudder pedals. A PCATD requires a CFII in order
for the time to count toward the instrument rating.

The next step up is a "Flight Training Device" and can be graded from Level
1 through Level 6 depending on the degree of realism of the cockpit and
visual display and controls. Even an older Level 1 Flight Training Device
which has only an instrument panel and no visual display can be used toward
IFR currency. It is acceptable for a CFII to administer an IPC in a
flight training device; however, it is also acceptable for a pilot to use
solo time in the flight training device toward instrument currency. A
flight training device can range anywhere from instruments only with no
motion to full-motion with 180-degree visual projection, a realistic
cockpit, advanced avionics, and sophisticated failure scenarios.

The next step up would be to a Level A through D "Simulator".. these are
highly realistic motion-based simulators which almost always cost in the
millions or at least high 6 figures.. it would be extremely unusual to use a
Level A through D "Simulator" for piston general aviation training.

My "simulator" which will be installed next week, for example, is actually a
full-motion Level 3 Flight Training Device. It will indeed be creditable as
logged time and for currency purposes. However, the time will count as
"Flight Training Device" time and "Simulated Instrument Time" and not as
airplane time.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:I1IPa.730$Je.471@fed1read04...
> Ben, the simulator maintained by most flight schools in the US are only
> usable for part of the Instrument course, and NONE of the commercial time
> building requirements. (ATC-xxx type or Frasca 142 and variants)

If approved by the local FSDO, even Level 1 Flight Training Devices (i.e.
Frasca 142 or AST 300) can be used both for partial time towards the
commercial rating and for either solo instrument currency or an instrument
proficiency check with a CFII. See this link:

http://www2.faa.gov/nsp/nsp/simftd3a.htm


> I have flown "full motion" simulators in the military, but they did not
> count (as far as the military were concerned) for qualification check
rides,
> or to maintain currency, that still had to be completed in a "real world"
> environment.

That may be true in the military but is not true of Level 1-6 Flight
Training Devices -- see the link above.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Larry Fransson]

In article <85ec12b8685df60ff2661cb9f832b12b@TeraNews>,
"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

> > That sound interesting. What requirements does the sim have to be able to
> to
> > type ratings on it?
>
> Level D simulator which basically becomes so real even the weather depiction
> landing in low IFR conditions is realistic --- this is a multi-million $
> sim.

You don't have to go quite that far. Level C will do fine. Their
visuals are plenty good. They just don't do daylight visuals or have
quite the level of fidelity that Level D simulators have. A night ILS
to minimums in a Level C simulator looks very much like what I've seen
when doing it for real. The landing lights illuminating the pavement,
and the haze for that matter, look very real.

When I talk about fidelity, I'm talking essentially about realism. A
Level C simulator taxiing pretty much glides along as smooth as silk.
The Level D simulator simulates the bumps in the taxiway. In a Level D
simulator, the sounds you hear are very close to the real thing (e.g. my
previous example of dragging a wing on landing). In the Level C
simulator I fly every year, it's very difficult to distinguish between
the sounds caused by a bird strike, an engine failing catastrophically,
and many other things because they're all created by the instructor
smacking the wall of the simulator with his hand.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Larry Fransson" > wrote in message
...

> You don't have to go quite that far. Level C will do fine. Their
> visuals are plenty good. They just don't do daylight visuals or have

That is almost correct... in order to use a Level C sim for a type rating
instead of a Level D sim the pilot needs to meet certain prerequisite
experience requirements -- See Appendix 1 Task vs. Simulation Device Credit
at the end of the ATP/Type Rating Practical Test Standards in this link:

http://av-info.faa.gov/data/practicalteststandard/faa-s-8081-5d.pdf


For those who are interested, the following link gives an extremely detailed
listing of the technical requirements for Level A through D simulators...
among other items a Level D can do which a Level C cannot do are accurate
representations of mach effect at altitude, weather radar correlated with
visuals, airframe icing scenarios, control bufetting in certain situations,
and flight near thunderstorms:

http://www2.faa.gov/nsp/nsp/AC-120-40B.pdf

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com