Flight Simulator Software - Any Help or Just a Game?

[pjbphd]

I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim software.
Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say it's
really a waste of time.

I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering if
anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.

Thanks in advance

pjbphd

[G. Burkhart]

"pjbphd" > wrote in message
news:Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06...
> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim software.
> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say it's
> really a waste of time.
>
> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering
> if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.

When I started my training a few years ago, my instructor asked me during
one of the flights if I had used a flight sim program. I said yes and he
told me not to touch it again until I got my ticket. I was keeping my head
inside the cockpit too much. Once I ignored the stuff on the inside of the
plane, my flying got a lot better and I continued on to get my certificate.
I still haven't played with flight sim since...

Others have said that a flight sim program is useful for instrument
instructions, if you don't use it to pick up or enhance bad habits. Save
your money for the yoke and pedals and invest it in flying hours, a decent
headset, etc.

YMMV

[Icebound]

"pjbphd" > wrote in message
news:Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06...
> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim software.
> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say it's
> really a waste of time.
>
> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering
if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> pjbphd
>
>

Pedals for sure. The twist action of a joystick rudder does not translate
well to the real thing. You "push" on the wrong side.

Obviously, a yoke-with-throttle-quadrant will also be better than a
joystick, but the left-right-back-forth action of a joystick for aileron and
elevator will carry over fairly easily.

Having said that, most joysticks are designed for right hand with left hand
throttle, and that is backward to a real-life left seat..... If you do opt
for a joystick, get one of those that allows you to reverse the throttle so
that you can operate the control with the left hand, and the throttle with
the right.

As for the "help-or-game" argument, you will find the internet is full of
real-life pilots who tell you it is great, and full of real-life pilots who
tell you it is not. So I guess each individual has to determine that for
themselves.

[Dudley Henriques]

The main problem for a new student pilot taking up actual dual
instruction in a real airplane is that in the initial stages of flight
training, learning to interface physically, mentally, and visually with
a real aircraft in flight requires that control pressures and how these
pressures interrelate to the aircraft in flight be learned. It's for
this and other less serious differences between the sim and the actual
aircraft cockpit environment that I STRONGLY recommend that all new
students shy completely away from the use a desktop simulator during the
initial stages of training before solo.
So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that it's
use can actually retard the progress of a new student.
The sims have limited uses later on when PROCEDURES are the issue, not
the hand flying of the airplane per se'
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

"pjbphd" > wrote in message
news:Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06...
> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim
> software.
> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say
> it's
> really a waste of time.
>
> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm
> wondering if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> pjbphd
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that it's
> use can actually retard the progress of a new student.

Another point of view:

I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of flight.
(Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real flight lessons,
I had a zillion hours of sim time.

At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and soloed
with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.

Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles was
just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and flying are
nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way, was an older
gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that computers were evil
devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim time really helped --
especially in the early stages of flight instruction.

Your mileage may vary, of course.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

Like Dudley, I think that using a flight simulator actually retards progress
for student pilots. I think they can be somewhat useful for instrument
students, but even there I would rather see a student using something like a
real flight simulator.

[Bob Moore]

"pjbphd" > wrote

> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim
> software. Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice.
> Others say it's really a waste of time.

When I encounter a new student who has "learned to fly" using
a Flight Sim program, I usually find it necessary to cover the
instrument panel for the first 2-3 flights in order to teach
him to fly a real airplane. The US Navy (where I learned to fly)
by far preferred future Naval Aviators who had never set foot in
an airplane before.....no bad habits to deal with.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI
PanAm (retired)

[Roger Long]

Here's how it looked to me shortly after I got my ticket:

http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma/Articles.htm (first Avweb article)

With the perspective of 220 hours, my feelings are mixed:

If you have the time, money, and skill to set up with yoke, rudder pedals,
and realistic flight models (which the out-of-the-box ones are not) it can
be very valuable in the last half of your training and the first 100 hours;
especially if money and weather keep you from flying regularly. If you
can't get anything except the joystick and stock program, forget it.

I was already a dedicated simmer when I started real flying which was an
offshoot of that. If you are not already into it, forget it, you've got
plenty to learn and spend your money on.

There was a time when it was definitely true that I would fly better after
three months away from the real plane during which I simmed extensively than
a month away from both. This was with a custom flight model I developed to
almost exactly match the panel and performance of my real plane. Even the
interior view were digital photos of the real thing. I don't know what the
effect would be without that close match.

I got so involved with real aviation that I just suddenly stopped simming
and haven't missed it. The days when it was really valuable were back when,
even though I had a license, I was still struggling to refine a lot of the
basics. If I didn't have airspeed and positioning just right as I turned
base, I would be trying to get back on the rails all the way to the flare.
The sim really helped me to be ahead of the plane and properly positioned to
get in the groove.

Now, if ATC calls for best speed and short approach, I can head for the
numbers, turn onto the centerline just short of them with a hint of pink
over red, cut the power, zoom up above the glidesloop, put in full flaps and
slip back into the spot I want.
(I don't do this kind of hot dogging often but I could see the regional on
final and knew the tower had called it a bit close.)
That kind of control of the plane, which didn't come until about 100 hours
after getting my license, kind of eliminated the need for the specific
skills that the sim was helping me keep sharp. I think I basically outgrew
it.

I'm sure though, that if I decide to go for an instrument rating, I'll be
pulling the dusty yoke and pedals out of the cellar.

--

Roger Long

[Dan Luke]

"pjbphd" wrote:
> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim
> software.
> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say
> it's
> really a waste of time.
>
> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm
> wondering if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful,

It was not useful to me; flying a computer sim is very unlike flying
the real thing. Sims are of some use for practicing instrument
procedures.

On the other hand, I had a couple hundred hours flying radio control
before I started flying lessons, and I found that gave me a very useful,
intuitve understanding of aircraft behavior.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Z15%c.136659$Fg5.37892@attbi_s53...
>> So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that
>> it's use can actually retard the progress of a new student.
>
> Another point of view:
>
> I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
> mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of
> flight. (Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real
> flight lessons, I had a zillion hours of sim time.
>
> At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and
> soloed with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.
>
> Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles
> was just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and
> flying are nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way,
> was an older gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that
> computers were evil devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim
> time really helped -- especially in the early stages of flight
> instruction.
>
> Your mileage may vary, of course.

Although your motorcycle skills and experience would most certainly have
had a positive effect on accelerating the learning process in the
airplane, the actual effect of flying a desktop simulator would have
limited effect. It's true that the simulator would have taught you the
basic DIRECTION of movement for each control, and that would be a
positive, but for the actual purpose of flying an airplane, it's
PRESSURES and RATES that are the pertinent factors, NOT direction!
Control direction is learned early on and the good instructor gets away
from direction quickly and begins working you with pressures
immediately. Over concentration on control direction is one of the big
negatives that has to be addressed by instructors with students coming
out of a heavy desktop sim environment into the real world of actual
flying.
From the instructor's viewpoint, the negatives involved in acclimating a
student to the control pressure environment after having been exposed to
a directional environment only as it exists in the sim; FAR exceeds any
positives gained through the knowledge and use of a joystick in a
simulator.
The motorcycle experience however would have been a huge plus, as is any
(hand eye vs pressure of application equals coordination )background.
In your case, I'm fairly certain that the reason for your accelerated
progress wasn't your sim experience, but rather the motorcycle skills
coupled with your extreme positive motivation and ability to learn and
absorb quickly.

I'm sure it helped however, that from the tons of hours you spent flying
the simulator, you already knew which direction to move the controls.
Why if you had been one of my students, this valuable information would
have saved you a HUGE amount of learning time.....say about the first
fifteen seconds of your first dual hour when I explained control
direction to you. Then of course, I could begin the process of weaning
you off the expected sim reaction and into the real world of getting to
know those pesky control pressures. Who knows...with all that motorcycle
training and hand eye stuff going for us, we might even get into those
pressures without wasting all that much time; but that would of course
depend on how good I was at getting you to let go of all that sim time,
and how receptive you were to actually letting it go!! :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

I agree. Flight sims did not teach me how to fly. But they DID teach me
about maintaining a sensitive touch and how powerful small adjustments can
be. The first time I got behind the wheel of a car with an instructor, he
was amazed at how smooth my control inputs were. I didn't swerve while
alternately jamming on the gas and brakes. He asked "are you SURE you've
never driven a car before?" While I certainly wasn't perfect, I credit
flight sims with giving me that smooth touch.

In addition, flying different aircraft in MS Flight Simulator had me
constantly trying different sensitivities so that I didn't get locked into
believing that "when I push the joystick this much, I will bank this much."
Instead, I would learn to adapt to each aircraft and see that there was no
single way of flying the sim. When I first took the controls of a real 152
in February, it was the same basic idea. This was a new set of controls, and
I'd have to explore them.

Now, I'm not sure if I can give the following credit to FS or not, but I
seem to have a good sense of direction these days. I always seem to know
which way I'm heading and where things are in relation to me. My instructor
has asked where we are at random points on x-c's, and I tell him. Maybe
that's just something built into my mind, or maybe it's the result of 6
years of flying above a virtual Los Angeles. Maybe it's a bit of both.

In summary: Flight sims taught me that before I could learn a vehicle's
controls, I would first have to explore them with a careful hand. A good
sense of direction may have been at least partly the result of the sims.


-Tony
Student Pilot
31.3 Hours




"Jay Honeck" wrote
> Another point of view:
>
> I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
> mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of flight.
> (Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real flight
lessons,
> I had a zillion hours of sim time.
>
> At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and soloed
> with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.
>
> Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles was
> just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and flying are
> nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way, was an older
> gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that computers were evil
> devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim time really helped --
> especially in the early stages of flight instruction.
>
> Your mileage may vary, of course.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dan Truesdell]

I find them great for instrument training/practice (as in getting an
instrument rating). However, I found that the only benefit from my sim
before and during my primary training was the ability to practice
cross-countries. I would set the sim to night time (the original MS
Flight Sim), shut off the lights in the room, and set up a trip (such as
from BOS to MVY). Basically just practiced the navigation.

pjbphd wrote:
> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim software.
> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say it's
> really a waste of time.
>
> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> pjbphd
>
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[C Kingsbury]

"pjbphd" > wrote in message news:<Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06>...

> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.

I think the modern flight sims (e.g. MS FS 2000+) model instrument
procedures well enough to extract some use in polishing procedures
after you've been taught the right way to do things. You don't use any
of their canned "lessons" but if you need to drill yourself on, say,
ADF holds, they are more useful than a notebook and some flash cards,
but perhaps not as much as you'd like to think. FS2004 is in its own
way impressive but still far behind the actual environment. I have
that, a fast computer, and a nice CH yoke, and it's still "not quite
right."

For a primary student, I suspect they are at best useless, and at
worst harmful. The lack of kinesthetic feedback deprives you of what
you need most at that stage. Save your money, be happy, and fly a real
airplane :)

-cwk.

[FullName]

"pjbphd" > wrote in
news:Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06:


I as well am a student pilot and found my M$ flight sim 2004 invaluable. I
have the pedals and 3 lever yoke and has helped me fix a few persistant
problems I have had.

Instructors I have worked with have said that students that use flight sim
have a much easier time when getting the IFR ticket.

I use it now to fly my x-countries before I actually go. Helps me to get
aquainted with my flight plan....



My 2 bits....

[Jim Rosinski]

"pjbphd" > wrote

> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim software.
> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say it's
> really a waste of time.
>
> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering if
> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.

For VFR flying Flight Sim 2004 is probably next to useless (or worse
than useless as some others have indicated) for helping with the real
thing. But for flying in the clouds it's nothing short of superb.
Clearances, reasonable reproduction of flight dynamics, and not bad
weather depiction. I have the yoke and throttle quadrant device from
CH Products, which was something like $85 and well worth it. Rudder
pedals would be nice, but I haven't forked over for those yet. I'd
like to see how accurately a slip or skid can be simulated.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Blanche]

Icebound > wrote:
>Having said that, most joysticks are designed for right hand with left hand
>throttle, and that is backward to a real-life left seat..... If you do opt
>for a joystick, get one of those that allows you to reverse the throttle so
>that you can operate the control with the left hand, and the throttle with
>the right.

That's because military jets use that configuration. Senior cadets
at the air force academy learn to fly in the right seat so that they
get used to throttle-left, stick-right.

[Earl Grieda]

"pjbphd" > wrote in message
news:Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06...
> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight
> Sim software. Some say it's great for a little on the ground
> practice. Others say it's really a waste of time.
>

The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim training are
better than students without Flight sim training.

"Armchair jet jockeys play Microsoft Corp.'s Flight Simulator on their PCs
to capture a bit of the thrill of the real thing, which replicates an actual
flight experience closely enough that the Navy is making its customized
version of Flight Simulator standard issue for all student naval aviators.
.......
Cadets who used the Navy version of Flight Simulator in a test run this
summer "had significantly higher flight scores...and fewer below average
unsatisfactory flight scores," "

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/26/missile.idg/

This is from an AOPA article.

"Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval Academy
graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into Naval
flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found himself at
a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program—many of his classmates
had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
pilots.

Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft’s
Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation of
the Beech T–34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added local
landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him with
situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the customized
simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.

His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near the top
of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer gaming
software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received above-average
flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator 98—modified
with a software shell, much like Lacy’s version—to all of its flight
students."

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

[Dylan Smith]

In article et>,
Dudley Henriques wrote:
> So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that it's
> use can actually retard the progress of a new student.

My experience is completely the opposite. I was having trouble with
crosswind landings (I had to think about what I had to do to stop the
drift, and it was of course too late by the time I'd come up with the
answer - this is something you have to do automatically). With a flight
sim with a yoke and pedals, I could practise doing crosswind landings
with extreme crosswinds over and over and over again until I'd
automatically put the control inputs in the correct way. This was with
FS95.

The next crosswind landing lesson may not have resulted in perfect
landings, but they resulted in no overshooting of the centreline when
turning base to final, and automatically using the correct inputs to
stop the drift, and no sideways movement on touchdown. Worked great for
me.

Of course, for instrument training there is no question it's valuable
(the best ones are the 'PCATDs' with the right physical controls
including knobs you can twist on the radios, but a normal FS 'game' will
do the trick - and of course you can simulate conditions you'd never do
in real life training because they are too dangerous, such as engine
failure on takeoff in a light twin in low IFR, gyro failures - with the
slow failure of the gyro that might go un-noticed. We had great fun with
the PCATD with the separate instructor console as the poor pleb who we
are torturing has no idea what will happen next.)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Moore]

"Earl Grieda" wrote

> The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim training
> are better than students without Flight sim training.

But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.

Bob Moore
US Naval Aviator '58-'67
ATP CFI

[Michael]

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> FS2004 is in its own
> way impressive but still far behind the actual environment. I have
> that, a fast computer, and a nice CH yoke, and it's still "not quite
> right."

If you ever use an FAA certified sim (and I've used a couple,
including one with visuals and motion) you will discover that while
the MSFS flight model is not quite right, it's a lot closer to right
than the FAA certified products. Sad but true.

Michael

[Earl Grieda]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
68...
> "Earl Grieda" wrote
>
> > The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim
> > training are better than students without Flight sim training.
>
> But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
> advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
> Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
> who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
> instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.
>

The impression I get is that it is used right from the start. The
individual who pioneered it, and convinced the Navy of its value, had never
flown a plane but felt he needed some way to catch up with his peers who had
already flown.

"Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval Academy
graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into Naval
flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found himself at
a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program—many of his classmates
had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
pilots.

Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft’s
Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation of
the Beech T–34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added local
landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him with
situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the customized
simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.

His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near the top
of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer gaming
software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received above-average
flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator 98—modified
with a software shell, much like Lacy’s version—to all of its flight
students."

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

[Michael]

Bob Moore > wrote
> When I encounter a new student who has "learned to fly" using
> a Flight Sim program, I usually find it necessary to cover the
> instrument panel for the first 2-3 flights in order to teach
> him to fly a real airplane. The US Navy (where I learned to fly)
> by far preferred future Naval Aviators who had never set foot in
> an airplane before.....no bad habits to deal with.

An inferior instructor always prefers students with no prior
experience or identical prior experience. That way, everyone can be
treated the same - the ultimate in cookie-cutter training. Even when
everyone comes in with the same (or no) experience, students vary in
the way they learn and would really benefit from individualized
training - but it's not really as obvious as when each student has a
different background.

A superior instructor always prefers students with as much experience
as possible. That experience can always be leveraged to make the
training faster and more indepth - provided, of course, the instructor
understands this prior experience and can effectively leverage it. If
he can't, he will complain about negative transfer and bad habits.

Playing flight sim is relevant experience, and can and should be
leveraged. Yes, it does tend to foster an overdependence on the
instruments in some cases, but this is easily addressed, and what
little increased time is spent in that area is more than offset by the
reduction in time required to teach instrument flight and navigation.
Of course if your training program is rigid and you can't take
advantage of those time savings, then it's all downside.

MSFS, while it has certain drawbacks, is really not a bad product.
The flight model is more realistic than what I've seen in the
FAA-approved trainers I've been exposed to. No, it doesn't do
anything at all for teaching the feel of the aircraft, but (and I know
I'm going to **** off some hardcore aerobatic types) that's a
relatively minor component in training a safe and proficient pilot.

The US Navy (and actually all branches of the US military) turn out
some really excellent pilots. Some people think that this must mean
the military really knows something about flight training. However,
it's important to remember that when you start with a bunch of
students who are all young, bright, and very motivated and focused,
and still wash a bunch of them out when they don't make the grade, you
will wind up with very proficient graduates even if the instructors
and instructional methods are worthless.

Nevertheless, I do not believe the instructional methods and
instructors employed by the military are worthless. At least they're
capable of improving once a student shows them the way. Downthread,
there is post referencing articles about the military use of MSFS for
student training.

Michael

[Dudley Henriques]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> 68...
>> "Earl Grieda" wrote
>>
>> > The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim
>> > training are better than students without Flight sim training.
>>
>> But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
>> advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
>> Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
>> who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
>> instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.
>>
>
> The impression I get is that it is used right from the start. The
> individual who pioneered it, and convinced the Navy of its value, had
> never
> flown a plane but felt he needed some way to catch up with his peers
> who had
> already flown.
>
> "Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval
> Academy
> graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into
> Naval
> flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found
> himself at
> a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program—many of his
> classmates
> had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
> pilots.
>
> Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft’s
> Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation
> of
> the Beech T–34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added
> local
> landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him
> with
> situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the
> customized
> simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.
>
> His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near
> the top
> of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer
> gaming
> software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
> practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received
> above-average
> flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator
> 98—modified
> with a software shell, much like Lacy’s version—to all of its flight
> students."
>
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

The Navy is having the same issues with simulators as the rest of the
aviation community. The sim has some use as an "augmentation", and I
stress the term "augmentation" because the Navy realizes quite clearly
that desktop simulation can NOT, and I repeat, NOT take the place of the
initial learning curve, where control pressures and rates of application
are key to establishing the base from which all further training will
depend.
The sim has limited uses for the Navy just as for anyone else in the
flight training business.
It's also true that studies have indicated some use for the simulator as
training progresses, AFTER full acclimation to the use of flight
controls has been established in the actual airplane. It's important to
understand this if you will be pushing the simulator issue on the
positive side of the ledger. The Navy is interested naturally in any and
all cost effective training aids that release manpower and equipment to
better more efficient use. A careful study is always in progress to
establish when and where and to what extent additions like the simulator
would affect the efficiency of the training program.
But make no mistake about it; no desktop simulator now in common use
will take the place of your butt in the seat during those first few
absolutely critical hours in the flight training learning curve.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[PaulH]

For basic flight practice, I consider it useless and potentially even
training you for bad habits (e.g. using too much aileron vs rudder
when landing).

For instrument practice, it's excellent.

[C Kingsbury]

Bob Moore > wrote in message >...
> "Earl Grieda" wrote
>
> > The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim training
> > are better than students without Flight sim training.
>
> But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
> advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
> Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
> who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
> instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.

The first story in the article he linked featured a student doing a
combined primary PPL-IA course at Embry-Riddle. Couple big issues to
watch here:

1. This is a highly-structured course with sim work put in at very
specific places for very specific reasons, not just somebody poking
around with it on their own.

2. This course is really designed for ab-initio students whose "first
plane" will be a CRJ or similar. How many of these students will spend
a lot of time flying 172s etc. after they finish their training?

-cwk.

[Dave]

>
> Although your motorcycle skills and experience would most certainly have
> had a positive effect on accelerating the learning process in the
> airplane, the actual effect of flying a desktop simulator would have
> limited effect. It's true that the simulator would have taught you the
> basic DIRECTION of movement for each control, and that would be a
> positive, but for the actual purpose of flying an airplane, it's
> PRESSURES and RATES that are the pertinent factors, NOT direction!



This has made me rethink a little. My time windsurfing surely helped in
this regard.

--
Dave A

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Z15%c.136659$Fg5.37892@attbi_s53...
> >> So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that
> >> it's use can actually retard the progress of a new student.
> >
> > Another point of view:
> >
> > I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
> > mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of
> > flight. (Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real
> > flight lessons, I had a zillion hours of sim time.
> >
> > At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and
> > soloed with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.
> >
> > Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles
> > was just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and
> > flying are nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way,
> > was an older gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that
> > computers were evil devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim
> > time really helped -- especially in the early stages of flight
> > instruction.
> >
> > Your mileage may vary, of course.

> Control direction is learned early on and the good instructor gets away
> from direction quickly and begins working you with pressures
> immediately. Over concentration on control direction is one of the big
> negatives that has to be addressed by instructors with students coming
> out of a heavy desktop sim environment into the real world of actual
> flying.
> From the instructor's viewpoint, the negatives involved in acclimating a
> student to the control pressure environment after having been exposed to
> a directional environment only as it exists in the sim; FAR exceeds any
> positives gained through the knowledge and use of a joystick in a
> simulator.
> The motorcycle experience however would have been a huge plus, as is any
> (hand eye vs pressure of application equals coordination )background.
> In your case, I'm fairly certain that the reason for your accelerated
> progress wasn't your sim experience, but rather the motorcycle skills
> coupled with your extreme positive motivation and ability to learn and
> absorb quickly.
>
> I'm sure it helped however, that from the tons of hours you spent flying
> the simulator, you already knew which direction to move the controls.
> Why if you had been one of my students, this valuable information would
> have saved you a HUGE amount of learning time.....say about the first
> fifteen seconds of your first dual hour when I explained control
> direction to you. Then of course, I could begin the process of weaning
> you off the expected sim reaction and into the real world of getting to
> know those pesky control pressures. Who knows...with all that motorcycle
> training and hand eye stuff going for us, we might even get into those
> pressures without wasting all that much time; but that would of course
> depend on how good I was at getting you to let go of all that sim time,
> and how receptive you were to actually letting it go!! :-)
>
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave" > wrote in message
news:aNq%c.1509$sS4.87@trndny03...
> >
>> Although your motorcycle skills and experience would most certainly
>> have
>> had a positive effect on accelerating the learning process in the
>> airplane, the actual effect of flying a desktop simulator would have
>> limited effect. It's true that the simulator would have taught you
>> the
>> basic DIRECTION of movement for each control, and that would be a
>> positive, but for the actual purpose of flying an airplane, it's
>> PRESSURES and RATES that are the pertinent factors, NOT direction!
>
>
>
> This has made me rethink a little. My time windsurfing surely helped
> in
> this regard.
>
> --
> Dave A

I'm sure it did. Students coming into flight training with a good
background in sports; normal or better reasoning skills; and a high
positive motivation based on positive incentive are very easy to work
with and train.
Surprisingly enough, a background in aviation related subjects can be
either an asset or a liability depending on exactly what has been
absorbed. It's a complete toss up in this area until the instructor
discovers what can be used and what has to be changed. Some of the most
difficult students I ever had, brought prior aviation knowledge into the
learning curve with them that was flawed...but as I said, it can be an
asset as well. The problem is that prior aviation knowledge has to be
evaluated by the instructor and this takes time away that could have
been spent in more productive ways.
All things considered, I much preferred the student coming in cold in
the aviation knowledge department and heavy in the other attributes I
mentioned.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

[C Kingsbury]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
>
> If you ever use an FAA certified sim (and I've used a couple,
> including one with visuals and motion) you will discover that while
> the MSFS flight model is not quite right, it's a lot closer to right
> than the FAA certified products. Sad but true.

And unsurprising. Regulation slows the pace of innovation, sometimes
with good reason, sometimes with good results, but often with neither.
In any case, instrument sims are mainly used to teach procedures, so
the flight model is not the most important thing, so long as it's
consistent.

I had an interesting experience with FS2004 right after I got it. I
loaded it up, cranked up all the realism fields, and plotted an IFR
flight from BED-LWM, which I'd done a dozen times in lessons. It's a
very short flight and you go from takeoff to approach almost
immediately so it's very easy to fall behind. Sure enough, the first
time I did it, I flew right through the localizer at LWM, just like I
did in the plane half the time! But the ATC wasn't smart enough to
vector me back around. Suppose that will wait for add-ons or the next
version...

Still, what FS04 could not create was the sense of urgency you have in
a real cockpit. For instance, turbulence really monkeyed with me early
on. I've been told a 6-degrees-of-freedom sim can actually replicate
many of the key kinesthetic phenomena quite well, and those seem to be
trickling down into GA training (c.f. Motus) albeit very slowly. Also,
while the ATC in FS04 is as pure software really, really impressive to
me, it's still far behind reality. Though if I had the same screen and
my CFII barking at me through a tube, I suppose you could capture much
of that.

Best,
-cwk.

[Tuomas Kuosmanen]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:02:59 -0700, Jim Rosinski wrote:

> For VFR flying Flight Sim 2004 is probably next to useless (or worse
> than useless as some others have indicated) for helping with the real
> thing. But for flying in the clouds it's nothing short of superb.

Nah, it can be useful for VFR too. FS2002 and 2004 actually started to
have reasonably good terrain in which you could recognize cities, roads,
powerlines and lakes. It was useful for me for my PPL.

I did not "just fool around" but I planned each flight, made the flight
plans, route planning, calculated wind correction, drew the route on the
map and so on. When I started the flight, I did it non-stop. If I forgot
the plotter to the kitchen table, or if the pencil broke but I had no
sharpener, I would not hit "pause" but just tried to deal with the
situation. Basically I tried to do "real flights" even though I was
sitting on the front of the computer. This, while it was just simulated
and might sound a bit silly, made me go through the routine of flying just
as much as if I was flying for real.

The "stick and rudder" stuff is just one part of flying,
and I agree a simulator can be a limited help in that area. It took me
about 60 landings to "get it" despite (or because :) of my sim
experience..

But there's a LOT more in aviation - situation awareness,
navigation, communicating with air traffic controllers, airspace, flight
planning etc. When all this could be practiced at home, it made me much
more relaxed on the real flight, since I had usually flown the same route
before on the simulator, I became familiar with the speed of the
aircraft and what it meant in terms of inches on the map, what altitudes
to use and what frequencies to use etc.. Also on the sim I had to rely on
the "big picture" of the landscape instead of individual local landmarks,
which I think is a good thing. So instead of recognizing a particular
church building I learned to look for things like "a lake with a town in
the west side" and "road crossing a river" etc.. Things you can find on a
map even though you dont know the area.

I also feel I am more confident with the use of VORs and such since the
simulator is a good practice device for those.

I encountered low ceiling (still VMC though) during my cross country solo
flight, and it surprised me since I was used to navigating on higher
altitude where visibility was excellent. The lower clouds restricted the
visibility to a much shorter distance in the horizon, and I got pushed
sideways by crosswind. I then missed a landmark and realized I was not
where I intended. In that situation I cross checked two VOR radials and
found myself on the map again. This was a routine thing I had
intentionally practiced on FS2002 several times before, and I am glad I
had. It helped to keep the workload lower on that situation and perhaps
even kept me calm instead of getting nervous in the cockpit.

So, yea, in my opinion it can be useful.

//Tuomas

[Tuomas Kuosmanen]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:32:20 -0700, C Kingsbury wrote:

> Also,
> while the ATC in FS04 is as pure software really, really impressive to
> me, it's still far behind reality. Though if I had the same screen and
> my CFII barking at me through a tube, I suppose you could capture much
> of that.

One thing I used to polish my radio chatter was VATSIM (www.vatsim.net) -
while it is volunteer based, and again, no guarantees (learn things
from your books, not from there) - it was surprisingly good. Plus it was
great fun too.

But yeah, do not get too excited about the sim stuff - the learning for
real is the main thing and a simulator well used can complement that
nicely.

//Tuomas

[Richard Russell]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:56:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that it's
>> use can actually retard the progress of a new student.
>
>Another point of view:
>
>I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
>mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of flight.
>(Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real flight lessons,
>I had a zillion hours of sim time.
>
>At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and soloed
>with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.
>
>Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles was
>just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and flying are
>nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way, was an older
>gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that computers were evil
>devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim time really helped --
>especially in the early stages of flight instruction.
>
>Your mileage may vary, of course.

Atari ST? I would have killed for one of those. I was stuck with an
Atari 800 that I had about $1,000 invested in, if you can believe
that. I started flying Bruce Artwick's flight simulator before it was
SubLogic. I also believe that my 30 years of motorcycle riding helped
with my flying. Everything from the similarity of motion to the
attentiveness to weather helped.

That being said, I do think that the simulator can be harmful to a new
student primarily because of the well documented "head in the cockpit"
syndrome. Those that have flown simulators for many years may be over
that problem. At any rate, there is much to be gained from Flight
Simulator, even if not at the beginning of your training. In response
to the OP, it is not a substitute for a real plane or a CFI but it is
clearly more than just a game.

Rich Russell

[Paul Sengupta]

Well, when I learnt to fly, I had a really hard time getting landings
right. Due to a death in the family I had a month's gap from flying.
Partly to keep my hand in and partly because I was suffering
withdrawal symptoms I loaded up Microsoft FS and flew around a
bit on that. I was mostly practising circuits, especially landings.

When I got back, my landings had improved no end and I went
solo soon after.

Paul

[Michael]

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> > If you ever use an FAA certified sim (and I've used a couple,
> > including one with visuals and motion) you will discover that while
> > the MSFS flight model is not quite right, it's a lot closer to right
> > than the FAA certified products. Sad but true.
>
> And unsurprising. Regulation slows the pace of innovation, sometimes
> with good reason, sometimes with good results, but often with neither.

I would say generally with neither.

> In any case, instrument sims are mainly used to teach procedures, so
> the flight model is not the most important thing, so long as it's
> consistent.

Well, sort of. Part of instrument procedures - at least in a
relatively fast airplane - is speed/power/configuration management.
In a Skyhawk or a Cherokee, you can blast into the approach at cruise
speed and make it all happen with the throttle, but that's just not
the case when you step up to a Bonanza or Mooney, never mind a twin.
Thus the flight model needs to be at least somewhat realistic in terms
of speeds/power settings/configuration. I actually have some
experience making such adjustments to an FAA-certified sim (in other
words - making the speeds, configurations, and power settings match
up), and the capability to make those adjustments is a lot better in
MSFS as well.

> I had an interesting experience with FS2004 right after I got it. I
> loaded it up, cranked up all the realism fields, and plotted an IFR
> flight from BED-LWM, which I'd done a dozen times in lessons. It's a
> very short flight and you go from takeoff to approach almost
> immediately so it's very easy to fall behind. Sure enough, the first
> time I did it, I flew right through the localizer at LWM, just like I
> did in the plane half the time!

And there's the value of the sim - scenario training. Sure, you could
chair-fly it - but doing it with real instrument indications in real
time has value. Now if you had an instructor fail an instrument at a
critical point, you would really have something.

> But the ATC wasn't smart enough to
> vector me back around. Suppose that will wait for add-ons or the next
> version...

The real solution is your instructor playing ATC, always assuming he
has enough "in the system" experience to do so realistically.

> Still, what FS04 could not create was the sense of urgency you have in
> a real cockpit.

Purely a mental issue. Call it suspension of disbelief. Maybe the
hot tip is to put the computer in a dark closet, turn on the vacuum
cleaner... Wait, wasn't that a joke about missing the airline pilot
lifestyle?

> For instance, turbulence really monkeyed with me early
> on. I've been told a 6-degrees-of-freedom sim can actually replicate
> many of the key kinesthetic phenomena quite well

In fact, I've had some experience with a full motion GA sim, and
indeed it replicates turbulence quite well. It certainly raises the
degree of difficulty.

> and those seem to be
> trickling down into GA training (c.f. Motus) albeit very slowly.

Very. I'm actually only aware of one that is available for the
single/light twin guys.

> Also,
> while the ATC in FS04 is as pure software really, really impressive to
> me, it's still far behind reality. Though if I had the same screen and
> my CFII barking at me through a tube, I suppose you could capture much
> of that.

Exactly. If there were a way to effectively replicate ATC in
software, would we really need all those controllers?

Being able to replace ATC with computers is still years away - never
if their union has anything to say about it. Besides, how comfortable
would YOU feel with ATC by MS?

Michael

[CV]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>Another point of view:
>>
>>I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
>>mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of
>>flight. (Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real
>>flight lessons, I had a zillion hours of sim time.
>>
>>At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and
>>soloed with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.

Same here. I soloed after 4.5 hours, but in 1984 during
the wire-frame depiction age, and my sim time was all on
one of those thingies (a Sinclair in my case). Didn´t have
zillions of hours on those either, but probably several
dozen.

I definitely had the impression that the sim time helped
a lot right from the beginning, not only with the direction
the controls worked, but things like minding the speed,
keeping the glidepath towards the threshold and other
details. Even managed a landing on my first lesson without
intervention (except verbal) from the instructor.
(Though I am not sure how remarkable or unusual a feat
that is, on a reasonably calm day).

As for other background there was no motorcycling experience
in my case. But I was extremely motivated. And I had been up
in a glider maybe three or four times as a kid and been
allowed to briefly try the controls (some 15 years earlier,
and total time for that cannot have amounted to more than
about half an hour).

This would actually be an interesting subject to see
investigated scientifically. It is so easy to have opinions.
Not that some of the opinions aren't valid and helpful
sometimes, but somehow they can never be totally convincing.

Cheers CV

[Euan Kilgour]

"Dave" > wrote in message news:<aNq%c.1509$sS4.87@trndny03>...
> >
> > Although your motorcycle skills and experience would most certainly have
> > had a positive effect on accelerating the learning process in the
> > airplane, the actual effect of flying a desktop simulator would have
> > limited effect. It's true that the simulator would have taught you the
> > basic DIRECTION of movement for each control, and that would be a
> > positive, but for the actual purpose of flying an airplane, it's
> > PRESSURES and RATES that are the pertinent factors, NOT direction!
>
>
>
> This has made me rethink a little. My time windsurfing surely helped in
> this regard.

I agree. I liken flying more to sailing than anything else. The
basic concepts of passing air over a movable surface to give lift (in
the air planes case) or thrust (in the sailing sense) are almost
identical. The other thing that struck me as being almost identical
was that if you make a change in trim in either case the craft takes a
moment to 'settle' into its new configuration. I spent a bit of time
chasing dials when I first flew until I made this connection to
sailing. Also the notion of 'staying ahead' of what the craft is
doing is identical (although its far easier to do in a
yacht/windsurfer than it is in a plane IMO, but thats debateable).

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:56:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
>mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of flight.
>(Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real flight lessons,
>I had a zillion hours of sim time.
>
>At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and soloed
>with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.

Perhaps. On the other hand, during the war years it was routine to
solo students in as few as 8 to 12 hours of stick time. This is with
no previous experience and in some cases no previous experience even
driving a car. In addition, the trainer was inevitably a taildragger.

This pre-dates electronic flight simulators by over 40 years so the
ability to solo early had nothing to do with any kind of pre flying
training.

Most of the people who become pilots have ALWAYS wanted to learn to
fly and this tends to create a very receptive attitude for learning
when that time comes.

Corky Scott

[Michael]

Corky Scott > wrote
> Perhaps. On the other hand, during the war years it was routine to
> solo students in as few as 8 to 12 hours of stick time. This is with
> no previous experience and in some cases no previous experience even
> driving a car. In addition, the trainer was inevitably a taildragger.

True. The standard military trainer of the time was a Stearman.
These days, it's considered a tricky, high performance (sic!) biplane.
There were some important things you're leaving out, though.

Training to solo took place on open grass fields. Cross wind landing
were not taught - or done. The students were all young and eager.
There was no radio work and no instrument work - just airwork and
landings.

Every field had a truck standing by. Each truck had a repair crew -
and a bed full of ailerons. The crews could replace an aileron on a
groundlooped airplane and have it ready for service in SEVEN MINUTES.
Imagine how much practice they got. A groundloop was no big deal.

Most older taildraggers are pussycats on wide open grass fields
landing into the wind - it's landing on paved narrow crosswind runways
with obstructions that makes them exciting. If all I had to do was
teach the average teenager to land, only on grass and into the wind,
and only well enough that I could be certain he would not hurt himself
- the occasional groundloop not being a big deal - I could solo them
in 6 hours all day long and twice on Sunday.

Realistically, I can't solo a brand new student in 6 hours these days.
My home field only has one narrow paved runway, aligned cross to the
prevailing winds and with structures and trees that make any crosswind
gusty. The pattern is busy, and radio use is expected. The FAA gives
me a laundry list of things I have to do with them before I solo them.
These days, if someone soloes in under 10 hours, that's pretty good,
and generally indicates better than average preparation.

Michael

[Gary Drescher]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
ogers.com...
>
> "pjbphd" > wrote in message
> news:Nx3%c.213310$sh.156079@fed1read06...
>> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim software.
>> Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice. Others say it's
>> really a waste of time.
>>
>> I don't expect it to really take the place of air time, but I'm wondering
> if
>> anyone out there can tell me if it's really useful, and if so, what
>> accessories are recommended e.g., yoke and pedals.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> pjbphd
>>
>>
>
> Pedals for sure. The twist action of a joystick rudder does not translate
> well to the real thing. You "push" on the wrong side.

The direction of the twist effect is programmable in the flight sims I'm
aware of. But I agree it's better to have pedals.

> Obviously, a yoke-with-throttle-quadrant will also be better than a
> joystick, but the left-right-back-forth action of a joystick for aileron
> and
> elevator will carry over fairly easily.

Yup, it does carry over. I find a force-feedback joystick more realistic
than a non-feedback yoke.

> Having said that, most joysticks are designed for right hand with left
> hand
> throttle, and that is backward to a real-life left seat..... If you do opt
> for a joystick, get one of those that allows you to reverse the throttle
> so
> that you can operate the control with the left hand, and the throttle with
> the right.

I prefer to ignore the throttle control on the joystick, and just mouse the
throttle control on the panel (along with the mixture and prop controls).
FS2004 lets you use the mouse's scroll wheel for fine adjustments of the
throttle.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "pjbphd" > wrote
>
>> I'm a student pilot and have heard mixed reviews of Flight Sim
>> software. Some say it's great for a little on the ground practice.
>> Others say it's really a waste of time.
>
> When I encounter a new student who has "learned to fly" using
> a Flight Sim program, I usually find it necessary to cover the
> instrument panel for the first 2-3 flights in order to teach
> him to fly a real airplane.

That's a potential drawback, but not an inevitable one. If a student knows
not to look much at the panel when learning to fly on a simulator, then that
bad habit won't be picked up. Present-day virtual-cockpit views allow you to
glance away from the panel most of the time, just like in real flight.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Tuomas Kuosmanen" > wrote in message
. FLIGHT.tigert.net...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:02:59 -0700, Jim Rosinski wrote:
> The "stick and rudder" stuff is just one part of flying,
> and I agree a simulator can be a limited help in that area. It took me
> about 60 landings to "get it" despite (or because :) of my sim
> experience..

The landing flare is the one phase of flying that my sim practice hadn't
prepared me for. For everything else, including ground-reference maneuvers,
I found it quite helpful.

--Gary

[Eric Ross]

I have the full yoke/rudder setup and found the simulator to be of
minimal use for initial training. Where it came in useful was in
habitualizing the procedures. (e.g. carb heat at midfield, RPM to 1500
at landing line, etc.). I am also finding it very useful for learning
IFR approaches and improving my instrument scan. I notice that the CH
Yoke sticks very slightly in the pitch access which makes it difficult
for precise glide slopes. Overall, I find the real airplane much easier
to handle.

Eric

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that it's
>>use can actually retard the progress of a new student.
>
>
> Another point of view:
>
> I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
> mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of flight.
> (Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real flight lessons,
> I had a zillion hours of sim time.
>
> At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and soloed
> with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.
>
> Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles was
> just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and flying are
> nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way, was an older
> gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that computers were evil
> devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim time really helped --
> especially in the early stages of flight instruction.
>
> Your mileage may vary, of course.