Re: PCAT value

[Bob Gardner]

A Flight Training Device, such as the one you had demonstrated to you, is
harder to fly than the actual airplane when it is working perfectly. The
airplane is a pretty forgiving thing, short term...you can let go of the
controls and it will maintain trimmed pitch and bank for awhile. The FTD, on
the other hand, forces you to scan properly and stay on top of the
situation. This is a good thing.

Having said that, I think you got a lousy demonstration...don't know whether
to blame the box or the instructor.

Bob Gardner

"RM" > wrote in message
om...
> I just went over to one of the local flight schools and asked to see
> their simulator. The owner was kind enough to allow an instructor to
> give me a demonstration, which turned into a free 20 minutes or so on
> the thing.
>
> I can't say as I was terribly impressed. The most obvious problem was that
> it crashed twice. No, I didn't fly it into the ground. Once it just froze
> and the PC needed to be rebooted. The second time the instructor was
fooling
> with the GPS settings while I chased the ADF needle around until we
> apparently flew into a black hole and everything disappeared. That was
> the end of the session.
>
> Besides these software flaws, the simulator just didn't handle much like
> an airplane.
>
> Does anyone think these things really have value as a training device?
> It's hard to see it. Maybe the real simulators, Frasca or whatever, are
> better. I had thought that getting an instrument rating at a school with
> a simulator would be a real advantage, but perhaps that was wishful
thinking.
>
> This also brings up questions about using Pocket PC based machines to
> replace paper charts. I'd as soon go skydiving without a parachute as
> depend on Microsoft software in the cockpit.

[Michael]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote
> A Flight Training Device, such as the one you had demonstrated to you, is
> harder to fly than the actual airplane when it is working perfectly. The
> airplane is a pretty forgiving thing, short term...you can let go of the
> controls and it will maintain trimmed pitch and bank for awhile. The FTD, on
> the other hand, forces you to scan properly and stay on top of the
> situation. This is a good thing.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. That's what all incompetent/lazy
software developers say - and they say it because sometimes people
believe it.

The sign of a good simulation of real life is this - someone who can
do it in real life does well in the simulation almost immediately,
while someone with no experience has a learning curve. In my
experience, FAA-certified FTD's generally offer terrible simulations.
That's not to say they have no training value, but the training value
would be a lot higher if the sim behaved like the real aircraft. Yes,
if you turn up the turbulence it's harder to fly - but not in a
realistic way that prepares you to handle the actual aircraft in the
clouds.

I recommend giving the junk software written to government standards a
miss. Instead, buy any decent flight sim (even MS). No, the time
isn't loggable - but the flight model is much better, there is much
greater flexibility in panel customization, and there are a lot fewer
bugs (even in the MS product).

> Having said that, I think you got a lousy demonstration...don't know whether
> to blame the box or the instructor.

I'm sure both meet FAA minimum standards.

Michael

[Greg Esres]

<<Does anyone think these things really have value as a training
device?>>

Properly used, yes.

It's a procedures trainer, period, IMO. I don't have students fly the
airplane, just use the autopilot. Valuable learning how to
effectively use the navaids, learn the instrument approach procedures,
holding pattern entries, and practicing the 5T's.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> while someone with no experience has a learning curve. In my
> experience, FAA-certified FTD's generally offer terrible simulations.

Well, I gave demos this week to 2 airline pilots in my FAA-certified FTD and
they both flew an ILS to Laguardia down to minimums in a crosswind on the
first try, broke out at minimums over the approach lights, and landed on the
first try.

I think when you say "FAA certified FTDs" it depends what equipment is
installed. Even at a given certification level, there is a very wide
variance in the control feedback and trim system the FAA wil permit. In
general, the FTD manufacturers are switching over from analog to digital
design and that permits more precise scaling and update rates of the
instruments, which in turn makes it easier to fly the FTD with a
conventional scan. It is hard to just call a device a "Frasca" or an "ATC
300" just like it is hard to refer simply to a "PC" running "Microsoft
Word" -- there are so many versions which have evolved over time.

As for PC-based devices, generally they turn out to be a lot easier to fly
if you add a throtte quadrant with flap and gear controls, rudder pedals,
and a generic avionics console. A self-centering yoke with increasing
resistance at the extremes of travel makes a *huge* difference in the
ability to hand-fly an instrument approach on one of these devices -- that
is probably the most important component of any home PC-based FTD.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:
> > Having said that, I think you got a lousy demonstration...don't
know whether
> > to blame the box or the instructor.
>
> I'm sure both meet FAA minimum standards.

Hee-hee! Good one.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Gardner]

Can't agree with your assertion that anyone who does it in real life can
handle an FTD. When I had my AST-300 business, across the street from the
FSDO and on a field with several 135 operators and corporate operators whose
pilots came to me to stay sharp, they all (FAA and civilians) had problems
of one kind or another in adjusting to the sim...but they caught on in a
hurry and did better in general than the general run of customers. No one
ever complained that I was taking money under false pretenses, and they kept
coming back......

Bob Gardner

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote
> > A Flight Training Device, such as the one you had demonstrated to you,
is
> > harder to fly than the actual airplane when it is working perfectly. The
> > airplane is a pretty forgiving thing, short term...you can let go of the
> > controls and it will maintain trimmed pitch and bank for awhile. The
FTD, on
> > the other hand, forces you to scan properly and stay on top of the
> > situation. This is a good thing.
>
> It's not a bug, it's a feature. That's what all incompetent/lazy
> software developers say - and they say it because sometimes people
> believe it.
>
> The sign of a good simulation of real life is this - someone who can
> do it in real life does well in the simulation almost immediately,
> while someone with no experience has a learning curve. In my
> experience, FAA-certified FTD's generally offer terrible simulations.
> That's not to say they have no training value, but the training value
> would be a lot higher if the sim behaved like the real aircraft. Yes,
> if you turn up the turbulence it's harder to fly - but not in a
> realistic way that prepares you to handle the actual aircraft in the
> clouds.
>
> I recommend giving the junk software written to government standards a
> miss. Instead, buy any decent flight sim (even MS). No, the time
> isn't loggable - but the flight model is much better, there is much
> greater flexibility in panel customization, and there are a lot fewer
> bugs (even in the MS product).
>
> > Having said that, I think you got a lousy demonstration...don't know
whether
> > to blame the box or the instructor.
>
> I'm sure both meet FAA minimum standards.
>
> Michael

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> Well, that sounds like a good simulation. But I seem to recall that
> your FAA-certified FTD is a device with motion, right? In fact,
> doesn't it have enough motion to be considered a simulator rather than
> a procedures trainer?

Yes, it has 6-axis motion, and that does indeed help a good bit with the
realism of the simulation.

However, officially it is still "just" an FTD -- temporarily Level 1 and
then ultimately Level 3 after the FAA inspects/approves it.

So actually from the FAA's standpoint as of today my full-motion "simulator"
is officially categorized the same as an old tabletop Frasca FTD with
instruments only and no visual display.

In order to qualify an an official "simulator" rather than a "flight
training device" a lot more would need to be done to replicate the specific
performance of one airplane -- an exact cockpit replica, verified flight
modeling at the extremes of flight, dynamic control loading matching the
specific airplane's control pressures, realistic simulation of flight in
icing and near thunderstorms, and a bunch more. This would require
hydraulic rather than electric actuators on the motion base as well as quite
a bit of hardware/software design such that there probably is no
economically realistic way to achieve even a Level A Simulator for piston
aircraft -- even the low end of quotes I got "for fun" were way way out
there, as in 10 to 15 times the cost of a Cessna P210.

Even then, I am not sure it would make sense to have a piston simulator so
specific to one airplane type -- a lot more practical is to have both
turbocharged and non-turbocharged flight models for both single- and
multi-engine piston airplanes, as my FTD can do. I think from the
standpoint of using a flight training device for piston airplanes, mostly
what students are aiming for is to learn emergency procedures, practice
partial panel in a realistic situation, and perhaps learn how to operate an
IFR GPS -- there probably is no huge advantage to having an aerodynamically
precise flight model to achieve this as long as the power settings and
control response are close enough to let the student sit down and
successfully fly an approach on the first try.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[bsmullyan]

Bob-I am new to travel.com and I am thinking about starting a simulation
training facility. Did you get out of the business because you sold it
or because it was hard to get a consistent flow of students?


--
bsmullyan
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com