Condor

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Let's not forget, guys and gals, that it's a freaking *simulation*.

Referring to Scott Manley's article in Soaring this month, of course.

Primacy, anyone?

Concerned,

Evan Ludeman / T8

[gliderpilotGR]

Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making


regards,

gliderpilotGR

[noel.wade]

I haven't read the article; but I _would_ like to point out the
hypocrisy of some people criticizing simulation when they themselves
haven't tried it, or aren't as experienced with it as the people
presenting educated, detailed information.

If you yourself are afraid of the unknown or don't understand a
subject, that's fine. But don't slam something purely out of
ignorance. Learn the subject, THEN comment on it like an expert.

Thank you.

--Noel
P.S. This is a general statement, not aimed personally at anyone on
this thread.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, March 8, 2013 3:33:44 PM UTC-5, gliderpilotGR wrote:
> Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making
>
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> gliderpilotGR

It's an article extolling the virtues of Condor for ab initio training. By the end of the article he says:

"So try to imagine the reaction, of those invested in the status quo, to this assertion:

I believe, given the proper resources, candidates for private and commerial pilot certificates with glider category ratings, could entirely manage their own flight-training development, and in large part, teach themselves to fly.

I believe they can and should be empowered to do that."

FWIW, I'm not an instructor and I'm not "invested" here. Just simply wondering if I'm the only one that's a little queasy at this prospect.

Also fwiw, I had a great time learning to fly RC using Phoenix. I also managed to crash a couple of real models really hard even after a lot of sim time, in no small part because the sim does not capture all of the flying characteristics of real models nor the characteristics of real weather.

T8

[Bill D]

My reference is CAP Cadets. A standard question I ask before their first glider flight is "Do you fly PC flight simulators?" I then note how well they fly the glider. Invariably, those who fly simulators do vastly better than those who don't. Some Cadets can fly all the PTS maneuvers on their first flight. I agree with Scott, simulators have a place in ab-inition training especially with the trainer shortage.

Where I DO see "bad habits" is Flight Reviews.


On Friday, March 8, 2013 1:33:44 PM UTC-7, gliderpilotGR wrote:
> Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making
>
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> gliderpilotGR

[noel.wade]

On Mar 8, 12:54*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:

> I believe, given the proper resources, candidates for private and commerial pilot certificates with glider category ratings, could entirely manage their own flight-training development, and in large part, teach themselves to fly.
>
> I believe they can and should be empowered to do that."
>
> FWIW, I'm not an instructor and I'm not "invested" here. *Just simply wondering if I'm the only one that's a little queasy at this prospect.


I think the key words are "proper resources". That includes training
students how to use the simulator _properly_ and what its limitations
are. I don't think Scott is arguing that people should be completely
left to their own devices from the word "go". Rather, I think he's
positing that students don't need a flight instructor looking over
their shoulder every minute of practice.

For obvious reasons we can't let students go up "solo" in a real
glider to practice maneuvers before they're ready to handle a complete
flight on their own. But in a simulation environment, a student with
proper orientation and guidance can "woodshed" certain aspects of
their flying, without constant supervision. For example: If they can't
handle landings yet, then have them pause and reset the sim after they
get into the pattern and get to base or final leg. They can _still_
learn general aircraft control, proper use of trim, turn-coordination,
and other skills without having to worry about (or even know about)
the flare and landing.

Let me go "old school" with this: Did any of your flight instructors
ever teach you "chair flying"? Where you sit in a chair and close your
eyes and talk through (or pantomime) a maneuver or part of a flight?
This is an accepted part of flight training and has been used for
decades. And the same dangers of "simulation" apply to "chair flying":
You have to understand the limits, and be wary not to practice
improperly. But if you're on-guard for those issues, you can still
derive a great benefit from such practice.

I continue to believe that one of the biggest problems with glider
training is the fact that students may only get 1 "lesson" (or day of
flying) every 1-4 weeks. That leaves a lot of time in-between to
forget skills and to impede the encoding of muscle-memory responses
(kinesthetics, or the "feel" for the controls). Since daily tows are
not practical for most of us, simulator sessions to "fill in" around
real training can be of great benefit in speeding the learning curve
and dampening the impatience and frustrations that many students go
through.

--Noel
(CFIG in-training, and user of flight simulators for 27 of the 35
years I've been alive)

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Please... read the article. Then let's talk about it.

I have absolutely no axe to grind w.r.t. Condor or any other flight sim and there is absolutely no need for anyone to leap in here to defend that which isn't being attacked (e.g. the use of simulators in flight training). As mentioned previously, I've used them myself most recently to train for RC flying.

Scott's article is *much* more radical. I will not attempt to summarize. Go read it.

T8

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I think that my main concern would be the frequency and quality of lookout..

It is very evident to instructors (in my UK experience of talking to some, as well as having been one) that too many pilots do not have very good lookout. There is hard evidence – the numbers of collisions – as well as instructors’ impressions during check flights. (By the way, as I have written in an article for the UK Sailplane and Gliding magazine, my lookout is not good enough either – nobody’s is, IMHO – humans are just not near perfect enough. But to get anywhere with it, one has to at least try.)

There is further evidence in videos posted by people of their flights, using in-cockpit cameras – in some, the pilot’s head hardly ever moves from the straight ahead. In others, the head is sometimes seen to turn to the inside of a turn but not to its outside.

A major feature of initial instruction in gliders in the UK is the emphasis on lookout, particularly before turning – and lookout all round, not just in the direction of turn. Is this the same in other countries?

This is repeated in subsequent flights – many instructors block the stick being moved if the student tries to turn before looking out.
I have never seen a simulator that even simulated nearby gliders that are potential collision risks, let alone seen anyone trying proper all-round “lookout” in a simulator. I think primacy is the thing here – if students do not practice this from the start, they are unlikely to remember later.

I no longer instruct, but do have check flights every year. I expect my lookout to be monitored, and commented upon if not seen as adequate. No simulator at present does that, AFAIK.

Chris N

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 8, 2013 4:59:56 PM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Please... read the article. Then let's talk about it.
>
>
>
> I have absolutely no axe to grind w.r.t. Condor or any other flight sim and there is absolutely no need for anyone to leap in here to defend that which isn't being attacked (e.g. the use of simulators in flight training). As mentioned previously, I've used them myself most recently to train for RC flying.
>
>
>
> Scott's article is *much* more radical. I will not attempt to summarize. Go read it.
>
>
>
> T8

Scott Manley made an excellent presentation regarding the subject at our Chicagoland Soaring and Safety Seminar last month (thanks again, Scott!). It may have been a sneak preview of the next 'Soaring' article his referring to in this month's column so I won't go into the details. I believe his comments on training ab initio students exclusively on Condor are based on facts. However, it was training that he and other CFIGs supervised in on-line sessions with the student in another state. His experiences - which he documented with video in his talk - will surprise you.
Herb Kilian
Chicagoland Glider Council

[Echo]

Noel I'm curious to see what you think about Condor and simulation after becoming a real CFIG and teaching for a while. If I had a nickel for every time I had a student say "well in condor..." right before missing traffic underneath us, above us, birds circling, etc, I'd have a shiny new JS-1. I had to spend more time with a few students unlearning bad habits from computer flying that I think the computer flying actually saved. I fly a sim every 6 months for work in the most realistic simulators that exist, so I definitely agree they have their place, but I see things like condor as more of a way to explore cross country techniques. I agree it can be a good teaching tool and can serve as an example of basic aircraft mechanics, it will never be a satisfactory substitute for real stick time. I've heard all the arguments, including "you can learn to box the wake," okay, but you can't feel the nose being pulled, you can't feel the wake, and you can't get a REAL sight picture. To me, a better substitute for learning something like that is use a gopro video taken during a wake box maneuver, then go fly it.

Granted I learned on grass, dragging my tail, and looking out the window, and I teach accordingly...so take all this for what it's worth...




On Friday, March 8, 2013 4:44:34 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
> On Mar 8, 12:54*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I believe, given the proper resources, candidates for private and commerial pilot certificates with glider category ratings, could entirely manage their own flight-training development, and in large part, teach themselves to fly.
>
> >
>
> > I believe they can and should be empowered to do that."
>
> >
>
> > FWIW, I'm not an instructor and I'm not "invested" here. *Just simply wondering if I'm the only one that's a little queasy at this prospect.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the key words are "proper resources". That includes training
>
> students how to use the simulator _properly_ and what its limitations
>
> are. I don't think Scott is arguing that people should be completely
>
> left to their own devices from the word "go". Rather, I think he's
>
> positing that students don't need a flight instructor looking over
>
> their shoulder every minute of practice.
>
>
>
> For obvious reasons we can't let students go up "solo" in a real
>
> glider to practice maneuvers before they're ready to handle a complete
>
> flight on their own. But in a simulation environment, a student with
>
> proper orientation and guidance can "woodshed" certain aspects of
>
> their flying, without constant supervision. For example: If they can't
>
> handle landings yet, then have them pause and reset the sim after they
>
> get into the pattern and get to base or final leg. They can _still_
>
> learn general aircraft control, proper use of trim, turn-coordination,
>
> and other skills without having to worry about (or even know about)
>
> the flare and landing.
>
>
>
> Let me go "old school" with this: Did any of your flight instructors
>
> ever teach you "chair flying"? Where you sit in a chair and close your
>
> eyes and talk through (or pantomime) a maneuver or part of a flight?
>
> This is an accepted part of flight training and has been used for
>
> decades. And the same dangers of "simulation" apply to "chair flying":
>
> You have to understand the limits, and be wary not to practice
>
> improperly. But if you're on-guard for those issues, you can still
>
> derive a great benefit from such practice.
>
>
>
> I continue to believe that one of the biggest problems with glider
>
> training is the fact that students may only get 1 "lesson" (or day of
>
> flying) every 1-4 weeks. That leaves a lot of time in-between to
>
> forget skills and to impede the encoding of muscle-memory responses
>
> (kinesthetics, or the "feel" for the controls). Since daily tows are
>
> not practical for most of us, simulator sessions to "fill in" around
>
> real training can be of great benefit in speeding the learning curve
>
> and dampening the impatience and frustrations that many students go
>
> through.
>
>
>
> --Noel
>
> (CFIG in-training, and user of flight simulators for 27 of the 35
>
> years I've been alive)

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Condor has limitations, to be sure. However it's accessibility and modest cost may save our little sport from extinction if properly applied. I would like to see more CFI-G's use it, and if students can bootstrap themselves to some extent, then great. Maybe it just gets them hooked, or motivates them between real flights. (and yes, I did read the article)

One issue with Condor is that it hasn't been improved in a long while. Imagine it upgraded to the visual quality and realism of X-plane, which I believe is certified for flight training. X-Plane is great for power, but very weak for gliders (mostly doe to the poor atmospheric simulation.)

I would like to thank Frank and Scott for their pioneering work in this area. You have found a way to overcome many of the social and financial limitations of glider flight training today, and forged ahead in the face of much criticism. Well Done!

Matt

[Bill D]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:04:37 AM UTC-7, Echo wrote:
> Noel I'm curious to see what you think about Condor and simulation after becoming a real CFIG and teaching for a while. If I had a nickel for every time I had a student say "well in condor..." right before missing traffic underneath us, above us, birds circling, etc, I'd have a shiny new JS-1. I had to spend more time with a few students unlearning bad habits from computer flying that I think the computer flying actually saved. I fly a sim every 6 months for work in the most realistic simulators that exist, so I definitely agree they have their place, but I see things like condor as more of a way to explore cross country techniques. I agree it can be a good teaching tool and can serve as an example of basic aircraft mechanics, it will never be a satisfactory substitute for real stick time. I've heard all the arguments, including "you can learn to box the wake," okay, but you can't feel the nose being pulled, you can't feel the wake, and you can't get a REAL sight picture. To me, a better substitute for learning something like that is use a gopro video taken during a wake box maneuver, then go fly it.
>
>
>
> Granted I learned on grass, dragging my tail, and looking out the window, and I teach accordingly...so take all this for what it's worth...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2013 4:44:34 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 12:54*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > I believe, given the proper resources, candidates for private and commerial pilot certificates with glider category ratings, could entirely manage their own flight-training development, and in large part, teach themselves to fly.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I believe they can and should be empowered to do that."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > FWIW, I'm not an instructor and I'm not "invested" here. *Just simply wondering if I'm the only one that's a little queasy at this prospect.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think the key words are "proper resources". That includes training
>
> >
>
> > students how to use the simulator _properly_ and what its limitations
>
> >
>
> > are. I don't think Scott is arguing that people should be completely
>
> >
>
> > left to their own devices from the word "go". Rather, I think he's
>
> >
>
> > positing that students don't need a flight instructor looking over
>
> >
>
> > their shoulder every minute of practice.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For obvious reasons we can't let students go up "solo" in a real
>
> >
>
> > glider to practice maneuvers before they're ready to handle a complete
>
> >
>
> > flight on their own. But in a simulation environment, a student with
>
> >
>
> > proper orientation and guidance can "woodshed" certain aspects of
>
> >
>
> > their flying, without constant supervision. For example: If they can't
>
> >
>
> > handle landings yet, then have them pause and reset the sim after they
>
> >
>
> > get into the pattern and get to base or final leg. They can _still_
>
> >
>
> > learn general aircraft control, proper use of trim, turn-coordination,
>
> >
>
> > and other skills without having to worry about (or even know about)
>
> >
>
> > the flare and landing.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let me go "old school" with this: Did any of your flight instructors
>
> >
>
> > ever teach you "chair flying"? Where you sit in a chair and close your
>
> >
>
> > eyes and talk through (or pantomime) a maneuver or part of a flight?
>
> >
>
> > This is an accepted part of flight training and has been used for
>
> >
>
> > decades. And the same dangers of "simulation" apply to "chair flying":
>
> >
>
> > You have to understand the limits, and be wary not to practice
>
> >
>
> > improperly. But if you're on-guard for those issues, you can still
>
> >
>
> > derive a great benefit from such practice.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I continue to believe that one of the biggest problems with glider
>
> >
>
> > training is the fact that students may only get 1 "lesson" (or day of
>
> >
>
> > flying) every 1-4 weeks. That leaves a lot of time in-between to
>
> >
>
> > forget skills and to impede the encoding of muscle-memory responses
>
> >
>
> > (kinesthetics, or the "feel" for the controls). Since daily tows are
>
> >
>
> > not practical for most of us, simulator sessions to "fill in" around
>
> >
>
> > real training can be of great benefit in speeding the learning curve
>
> >
>
> > and dampening the impatience and frustrations that many students go
>
> >
>
> > through.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --Noel
>
> >
>
> > (CFIG in-training, and user of flight simulators for 27 of the 35
>
> >
>
> > years I've been alive)

There seems to be an age where students want to tell the instructor how things work. I think maybe it's over 30 in males.

Experienced pilots seem to have more difficulty with PC sims. I think this is because they are accustomed to cues from the flying environment not present with the PC sim such as feel. Non-visual cues are interesting and useful but you can't fly with them exclusively. A simple PC sim forces a pilot rely on visual information from the screen since that's the only feedback available. However, that's not all bad. Many pilots have never learned to use those visual cues well which, I think, is why they have trouble with the PC sim.

Flying a PC sim well means a pilot understands most critical visual cues. A PC sim forces a pilot to imagine a 3D mental map of their unseen surroundings which is the foundation of "situational awareness".

I recall pausing the sim for an "experienced" pilot who had just flown a particularly sloppy pattern ending with a mis-aligned approach. I asked for a self-critique of the pattern and approach. "Uh, looks OK to me", was the response. I pressed him, "High, low, left, right?" He was still unable to see the glider was low and well to the right of glide path even though those cues were glaringly obvious. Eventually, we worked it out but I have no idea how this pilot learned to land a glider.

The teenagers I fly with understand they didn't learn to fly with a PC simulator no matter how much time they spent with it but they're hoping for some positive transfer. When a student performs a box-the-wake maneuver to PTS standards on the first try after a demonstration, it's clear they learned something from their simulator time.

Scanning for traffic starts with a pre-flight briefing and gets embedded in their consciousness when traffic they didn't see is pointed out. After that, they spot more traffic than I do since they're in the front seat with a better view. Maybe it's how it's presented.

My preferred method of using Condor is to "pre-fly" the lesson plan with the student where I point out the visual references the student is to use and the standard of performance expected. This "pre-fly" session always uncovers misunderstandings which would have taken time to work out in flight. Then, with full agreement on what we are going to do, we go fly the lesson plan. I can tell this lowers their anxiety level significantly. A simulator is only a tool to be used as effectively as possible by the instructor.

[Tony V]

On 3/8/2013 3:33 PM, gliderpilotGR wrote:
> Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making


A few members of the Greater Boston Soaring Club built this Condor based
sim. We're just starting to work with it and so I have no report at this
time. These guys did a great job.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.444347248967132.1073741825.139665672768626&type=1


Tony "6N"

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 8:15:23 PM UTC-5, Tony V wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 3:33 PM, gliderpilotGR wrote:
>
> > Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making
>
>
>
>
>
> A few members of the Greater Boston Soaring Club built this Condor based
>
> sim. We're just starting to work with it and so I have no report at this
>
> time. These guys did a great job.
>
>
>
> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.444347248967132.1073741825.139665672768626&type=1
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony "6N"

For April 1 you need to replace the cockpit with a doghouse :-).

T8

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:15:23 PM UTC-6, Tony V wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 3:33 PM, gliderpilotGR wrote:
>
> > Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making
>
>
>
>
>
> A few members of the Greater Boston Soaring Club built this Condor based
>
> sim. We're just starting to work with it and so I have no report at this
>
> time. These guys did a great job.
>
>
>
> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.444347248967132.1073741825.139665672768626&type=1
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony "6N"

Tony,
What's the deal with the instruments in the glider panel? They look really good, are they functional? Did you put a tablet computer behind the panel and somehow displayed the instruments only on that tablet?

Herb

[Bill D]

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 8:24:17 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Saturday, March 9, 2013 7:15:23 PM UTC-6, Tony V wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/2013 3:33 PM, gliderpilotGR wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Don't know what article is about, but let me second your concern over primacy issues (and bad habits too) that may be caused by such endless hours of unsupervised practice. Should be forbidden for low time pilots, IMHO. In any enviroment other than a very well focused training organisation, trouble in the making
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A few members of the Greater Boston Soaring Club built this Condor based
>
> >
>
> > sim. We're just starting to work with it and so I have no report at this
>
> >
>
> > time. These guys did a great job.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.444347248967132.1073741825.139665672768626&type=1
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Tony "6N"
>
>
>
> Tony,
>
> What's the deal with the instruments in the glider panel? They look really good, are they functional? Did you put a tablet computer behind the panel and somehow displayed the instruments only on that tablet?
>
>
>
> Herb

It's a 2nd small computer monitor with only instruments displayed. A panel overlay makes it look realistic.

[Bill D]

My March Soaring Magazine finally arrived so I got the chance to read Scott Manley's "Condor Corner" on distance learning with a flight simulator.

I know Scott. Unlike 99% of CFI-G's, he has an advanced degree in secondary education. He's a PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR while the rest of us are mere instructors. He knows whereof he speaks.

There is nothing in his column to raise alarm. In fact there is much to admire. He has developed a way to train pilots which address almost every drawback of conventional flight training. It's particularly effective in the long winter months of northern climes.

Nor is it unusual. Every other branch of aviation is using simulators extensively in primary training. Soaring is the last to adopt them.

Yes, we need better hardware and software. At the top of the list would be inexpensive projection domes and full-featured cockpits with force feedback controls. The training software needs instant reset to a pre-selected point in the sky so a maneuver can be quickly repeated. But most of all, we need a commitment to use simulators in primary training.

[[email protected]]

Condor is here to stay. Better to accept it and find ways of utilizing it to improve training, safety, and participation rather than complaining, worrying, and arguing about it's obvious limitations and potential drawbacks.

MM

[Tony V]

On 3/10/2013 10:24 AM, wrote:
>> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.444347248967132.1073741825.139665672768626&type=1
>> >
>> >Tony "6N"
> Tony,
> What's the deal with the instruments in the glider panel? They look really good, are they functional? Did you put a tablet computer behind the panel and somehow displayed the instruments only on that tablet?
>
> Herb

The instruments are fully functional - although we're talking about
disabling the gyros for the contest season. :-) I asked the sim builders
for the hardware details for the instruments and will post as soon as I
get them.

Tony

[Tony V]

On 3/10/2013 10:18 PM, Tony V wrote:
> On 3/10/2013 10:24 AM, wrote:
>>> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.444347248967132.1073741825.139665672768626&type=1
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Tony "6N"
>> Tony,
>> What's the deal with the instruments in the glider panel? They look
>> really good, are they functional? Did you put a tablet computer
>> behind the panel and somehow displayed the instruments only on that
>> tablet?
>>
>> Herb
>
> The instruments are fully functional - although we're talking about
> disabling the gyros for the contest season. :-) I asked the sim builders
> for the hardware details for the instruments and will post as soon as I
> get them.
>
> Tony
>

For the instruments suite we run Free Condor Instruments software
(http://condorsoaring.ru/projects/FreeCondorInstruments) contributed
by the Russian Condor community. The software runs on the same Windows
machine which runs Condor, it intercepts Condor's UDP flight parameter
stream and renders the instruments. A small LCD panel from a cheap
monitor is used to render the instruments behind a mask/frame fitted
with faux screws (for realism). A PDA runs a copy of XCSoar and uses
Condor-generated GPS stream over a serial port. A short throw
projector beams the scenery onto a screen.

Tony

[Bill D]

Tony,

That's a very cool simulator. Congratulations to those who made it. I hope you make good use of it.

Bill D

[Terry Pitts]

I find it interesting that no one in the power world talks about Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane being great for teaching yourself how to fly. The opposite generally seems to be true, CFI's comment that the simmers can read the instruments, but can't really fly in a 3D world.

I believe that a simulator, supervised by an instructor, can be a useful introduction to lessons before flying them. I used MS FSX when teaching an instrument ground school a few years ago. My students, who were all experienced VFR pilots, thought it was great.

The January issue of Soaring had a Condor article along the lines of "I taught myself winch launching and I felt so prepared when I did it for real." More than half my flights are via winch launch and nothing I've seen simulated approaches the real thing.

The current issue of the German magazine Segelfliegen has a rather anti-simulator article written by a physician. The basic premise is that in emergencies we react the way we've practiced. The first time someone tries to get out of a spin by twisting the stick to be the rudders there will be a bad outcome. Other shortcomings of simulator training/practice/self study are detailed. I emailed Chuck Coyne offering to translate the article if he's interested in running it, but no answer.

Imagine a new soaring student spending ten supervised minutes practicing aerotow just before a first flight, or even before each of the first several flights. I can see rapid progress there.

The night before my IFR checkride I practice flew the cross-country flight I had been told to plan. I didn't make any of the mistakes on the checkride that I did in practice - they were all new!

So, I'm not opposed to sims as fun, as an interesting technical challenge, and a teaching tool under the right circumstances. I get really, really tired of Condor-is-better-than-sliced-bread, the world can hardly live without Condor page after page after page. I'd much rather skip it every other issue or quarterly instead of monthly.

Thread drift, but related to the magazine. I find it interesting that the reported statistics indicate that very few pilots are interesting in competition, but page after page of contest details keep showing up. Boring.

Editors of publications like Soaring complain they can only print what they get. I submitted a couple articles that were well received by everyone who read them, I withdrew them after almost two years of promises, including one "please review this because I'm going to use it in the [ground launch] issue then it was a no show. I've put a couple people in touch with the magazine about some interesting topics challenging the standard perception of stall/spin accidents (accident pictures often show the results of what was likely an inverted spin...) or a neat potential article based on a presentation by an olympic team-level sports optician about selecting proper sunglasses suitable for soaring (contrast, protect depth perception, color/tint selection, etc.).

The Germans and the Brits turn out big, glossy, interesting magazines. Why can't we have the same?

I don't want to turn into a nattering nabob of negativity. Detour over...

Terry

[Bill D]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 7:36:17 PM UTC-6, Terry Pitts wrote:
> I find it interesting that no one in the power world talks about Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane being great for teaching yourself how to fly. The opposite generally seems to be true, CFI's comment that the simmers can read the instruments, but can't really fly in a 3D world.


That's because the "power world" has far better simulator options. BTW, "airplane" works for me.

I actually haven't heard any negative comments. The CAP airplane Cadet orientation ride pilots seems to speak in awe of how well the kids with sim experience do. My experience with the cadets in glider is the same.

[Bart[_4_]]

On Mar 11, 5:14*pm, Bill D > wrote:
> That's a very cool simulator. *Congratulations to those who made it. *I hope you make good use of it.

+1

B.

[[email protected]]

Folks,

Here is my take on Condor. I have been flying it for 7.5 years, before I soloed and a lot after. I have seen all the Good, the Bad and the Ugly when it comes to learning to fly with the simulator.

Condor is an excellent tool for teaching concepts. I see it as a good tool for an instructor to show what they will be doing in a flight, such as boxing the wake, or a rope break, and then having the student practice and learn the concept, and do it in reality. For primary training, it can be a very useful tool if supervised by a competent instructor.

I flew Condor for many years before I learned to fly unsupervised. Because of this, I acquired a couple bad habits that I had to break in my real life flying. On landing, I would move the spoilers too much, I used to move the stick too much, and for a while I would be glued to the panel. I would say that after solo, it took me a little longer to learn how to thermal because of some of the bad habits I learned in the simulator.

HOWEVER! Once, I learned how to thermal and fly the ridge, all the of the advanced cross country training and competition I have done over the years kicked right in. Remember, Condor is intended to be a competition simulator, not a training sim. Once I was ready to go for Silver Distance, I had no issue going XC, sine I have done it so much in the simulator. Judging glideslope, wind direction, thermal placement; all was learned in the simulator. As a result, I was able to do more and more ambitious cross countries in a short period of time, since I had so much already figured out due to Condor.. I went from Silver Distance in August 2011 to Diamond Distance in April 2012, and winning contest days at my first contest in July 2012. That would have been IMPOSSIBLE without the excellent benefits of Condor.

More importantly, in those hard times as a kid unable to get out to the airport, it kept me interested in the sport and kept me going. I think Condor's immense benefits negate some of its minor issues, and those issues can be easily dealt with if they are approached correctly.

So there you have it...

Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

[noel.wade]

For everyone talking about Condor being a _bad_ idea for training, I
keep seeing one constant thread running through those comments: The
idea that someone will "learn the wrong way" to do something. Or that
they will "play" in Condor instead of "learn" in Condor.

The point is that Condor is a TOOL. Much like a wrench is a TOOL. It
can be used properly, and it can be used improperly. You can learn bad
habits in Condor just like you can screw up a bunch of nails by trying
to use a wrench to drive them into a wall (instead of using a hammer).
Or, to bring this a little closer to home for the CFIGs out there:
Improper use of Condor is no different from the improper use of props
and visual aids in a ground-school session.

If you're an instructor (like "Echo" in this thread) and you see a
student do something stupid and claim they've done it in Condor, then
YOU - the instructor - have a duty to talk to the student and get them
using the tool properly (or not at all). Don't blame the simulator
for the student's misuse of it. When you read about a fuel-starvation
accident do you blame the airplane for not having big enough gas
tanks? No, you blame the pilot for bad planning or not properly
fueling the airplane.

--Noel

[Bob Cook[_2_]]

Instructors use many "tools" in addition to actual flight training...we
have use these for years:

Books (written word)
Spoken word
Photographs
diagrams
charts
video
models

Condor is just a progression of all of those.

Cookie




At 22:37 12 March 2013, noel.wade wrote:
>For everyone talking about Condor being a _bad_ idea for training, I
>keep seeing one constant thread running through those comments: The
>idea that someone will "learn the wrong way" to do something. Or that
>they will "play" in Condor instead of "learn" in Condor.
>
>The point is that Condor is a TOOL. Much like a wrench is a TOOL. It
>can be used properly, and it can be used improperly. You can learn bad
>habits in Condor just like you can screw up a bunch of nails by trying
>to use a wrench to drive them into a wall (instead of using a hammer).
>Or, to bring this a little closer to home for the CFIGs out there:
>Improper use of Condor is no different from the improper use of props
>and visual aids in a ground-school session.
>
>If you're an instructor (like "Echo" in this thread) and you see a
>student do something stupid and claim they've done it in Condor, then
>YOU - the instructor - have a duty to talk to the student and get them
>using the tool properly (or not at all). Don't blame the simulator
>for the student's misuse of it. When you read about a fuel-starvation
>accident do you blame the airplane for not having big enough gas
>tanks? No, you blame the pilot for bad planning or not properly
>fueling the airplane.
>
>--Noel
>
>

[Jsoar Aero]

As a “senior� student pilot, with 25 years of powered ultralight and
ultralight glider flying experience yet only now going for my PPGL so I can
fly a “real� sailplane, I have found Condor to be very useful in my
learning process.

When I first started lessons I did 2 or 3 training flights one day a
weekend. Then nothing until the next weekend. I was not progressing all
that well with cross-wind aero-tow take-offs and landings, with just the
few seconds each flight to learn how to deal with them.

Then someone at the club suggested Condor. So I set up a system and started
flying several times during the week. It allowed me to explore the dynamics
of most flight maneuvers by trying things to see what happened, until I
figured out what was going on. Then with a lot of practice, my correct
reactions became more automatic.

The Condor sessions also allowed me to stay focused on flying during the
week, so I was ready to go the first flight of the next real-life session.
My flying quickly improved after that.

Now I mostly fly Condor set to strong (gusty) winds, so I have to keep my
head out of the cockpit and watch the horizon and ground all the time to
control my speed and direction. Then with only time for an occasional
glance at the panel, it helped me to learn to read and interpret the
instruments quickly.

Also I set Condor up with LK8000 on a PDA and have been learning some of
the issues of cross-country flying, which has been a lot of fun too.

Maybe Condor is not that great for starting students, I don't know, but it
sure helped me in my situation.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Good information coming out here... thanks.

But what about Scott's assertion that scratch students ought to be empowered to teach themselves how to fly using Condor? That's what I'm skeptical about. Emergency procedures? I can see using Condor to pre-view and re-view a lesson plan *with an instructor*. If it becomes the lesson plan, if it's self directed, I call BS. I have no problem with students practicing this stuff between lessons. I think the bennies called out here by others are valid. Part of the instructor's *essential* involvement here (this is so obvious) is to say "right, this here is a procedures trainer, we're going to use it to train *procedures*, and btw, reality can be a little more complicated".

A good friend of mine... with about 4000 hours in everything from hang gliders to twin turbo props stalled (at > 3000 agl) / spun / spiral dove his 18m sailplane right into the ground after pulling the wings off a few years ago. Multiple witnesses. There's only one plausible reason and that's failure to provide the correct control inputs. Probably, he skated on some aspect of training in gliders....

My $0.02

T8

[Bill D]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:02:16 PM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Good information coming out here... thanks.

> But what about Scott's assertion that scratch students ought to be empowered to teach themselves how to fly using Condor? That's what I'm skeptical about. Emergency procedures? I can see using Condor to pre-view and re-view a lesson plan *with an instructor*. If it becomes the lesson plan, if it's self directed, I call BS.

Condor is pretty good at punishing bad habits so I really can't see that as a problem. Fly it right or you crash. Gliders 'stall', 'spin', suffer wing flutter, 'lose their wings' and generally 'crash' for the same reasons real gliders do. If you indulge in multi-player flying, you can even suffer mid-air collisions. While I haven't seen any bad habits develop, I have seen it unduly frighten students who have 'crashed'. That's where an instructor can help.

I think a bigger issue is where the typical 14 years old is a Condor expert and the typical 50+ instructor looks bad because he can't fly the damned PC simulator. That's generating some Condor "bad mouthing".

So, can someone "teach themselves to fly" with Condor? That depends on what you mean. They can learn fly well enough to perform PTS maneuvers to PP-G standards but no DPE would mistake them as ready to receive a certificate.. There's no substitute for real-world flying with an instructor to develop finesse and most of all confidence. I don't think Scott said any different. I see the real benefit as cutting the number of flights and hours back toward the FAA minimum to receive their certificate.


> A good friend of mine... with about 4000 hours in everything from hang gliders to twin turbo props stalled (at > 3000 agl) / spun / spiral dove his 18m sailplane right into the ground after pulling the wings off a few years ago. Multiple witnesses. There's only one plausible reason and that's failure to provide the correct control inputs. Probably, he skated on some aspect of training in gliders....

I'm very sorry to hear that. I've had the misfortune to see two such in-flight breakups. Maybe if your friend had spent winters flying Condor, it wouldn't have happened.