This should settle it!

[Oz Lander[_2_]]

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

[muff528]

"Oz Lander" > wrote in message
...
> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.
>
> --
> Oz Lander.
> I'm not always right,
> But I'm never wrong.


From the article-
"Fortunately for the good guys, FAR 61.65(e) limits the use of flight
simulators to 10 or 20 out of the required 40 hours required for the
instrument rating. This means that the instrument student must actually fly
a real airplane for a minimum of 20 to 30 hours in either simulated or
actual instrument conditions."

Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator
time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument
rating".

I would think that the simulator would be a good tool to acclimate the
student to the environment prior to making the requisite 40 hours of

actual flight time but not to replace flying time. (Is simulator time
credited hour-for-hour?)

As a skydiver I recognize the benefits of using vertical wind tunnels to
"pretrain" first-jump students in stability and orientation. It's also
useful for working

out problems a student may have in mastering a stable freefall, but to get
your license you gotta do the actual jumps.

[Kev]

On Apr 15, 9:01 am, "Oz Lander" > wrote:
> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.

He also questions whether training for an Instrument license using
sims and view limiting devices is valid. FAA says yes.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Oz Lander writes:

> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.

It's just another expression of opinion, exactly similar to what has been
given here.

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

[Mxsmanic]

muff528 writes:

> Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator
> time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument
> rating".

I'm not. Much of instrument flight is watching instruments, following
procedures, and other activities that can be very accurately simulated. It's
the exact opposite of "seat of the pants" flying (which most simulators handle
poorly, unless they provide full motion).

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

[[email protected]]

>
> I'm not. Much of instrument flight is watching instruments, following
> procedures, and other activities that can be very accurately simulated. It's

Incorrect statement. Learning to fly on instruments also entails
learning to firmly shut out the "seat of the pants" sensations. The
"seat of the pants" sensations are not there when flying a desktop
computer so its incorrect to say that instrument flying can be
"accurately simulated" on a desktop. Only when you fly a real airplane
on instruments can you fully learn to ignore the often contradicatory
sensory input from the movements of the airplane.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Incorrect statement. Learning to fly on instruments also entails
> learning to firmly shut out the "seat of the pants" sensations. The
> "seat of the pants" sensations are not there when flying a desktop
> computer so its incorrect to say that instrument flying can be
> "accurately simulated" on a desktop.

This only makes a difference if you are conditioned to interpret physical
sensations in certain ways.

> Only when you fly a real airplane
> on instruments can you fully learn to ignore the often contradicatory
> sensory input from the movements of the airplane.

It might help to start with instrument flight and then continue with visual
flight, instead of the other way around. Of course, that might make VFR
skills more difficult to acquire.

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

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" > said:

> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.

Settle what?

I disagree with him vehemently on several points, not least the
usefulness of view limiting devices.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:01:45 +0000, Oz Lander wrote:

> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.

<Cite>
"Hey . . . anybody can fly these airplanes," goes the hype!
</Cite>

The author would have lamented the marketing for the early tricycle geared
aircraft from Cessna.

The idea behind simulations for education is one that's of interest to me.
Given a gross mistrust of schools (and prompted by an excellent if poorly
named book on teaching math to children:
<http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~kenschaft/Mathpower.html>), I've been
introducing math to my 4 yo. Recent additions to his education have been
negative numbers and number lines.

But given those, I introduced a couple of days ago how the pairing of two
number lines can be used for addition and subtraction. It's a
"simulation" of the mental process (and also an introduction to mechanical
computing, which I view as having its own value).

Is this a Bad Thing? I'm teaching use of a tool very early. So I've some
doubts.

On the other hand, I've found a site with printable paper E6Bs. That's
one of my goals for the future pilot <grin>.

- Andrew

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" > said:

> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.

To expand a little on my earlier reply:

I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down other
instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a serious
authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for years.

Who is Bob Miller? Yet, he thinks he knows more than the FAA, more than
the Kings, more than Rod Machado, more than the AOPA, more than Bob
Gardner, and even more than me. Only two people seem to know anything
about flight instruction: Bob Miller and God, and God is sometimes
wrong but Miller never is. What, is this guy a retired surgeon or
something?

The US Air Force, which presumably knows something about flying,
successfully uses simulators and view limiting devices for instrument
training.

I strongly believe that the instrument student should get all the
simulator time he can (we are talking about real flight simulators, not
toys published by game companies). I do not think that simulator time
is enough, obviously. You have to fly in order to learn to fly, and
that includes instrument training. But flight simulators are invaluable
in getting your procedures down cold.

As for view limiting devices, I should point out that they have been
use since the very earliest days of instrument flying. We don't paint
the cockpit black like Jimmy Doolittle did, but we come close. I am
convinced that it is harder to fly an airplane with a view limiting
device than it is in actual instrument conditions.

As for the "weather adverse" (sic) flight instructor, perhaps Mr.
Miller has forgotten that most of the largest flight schools are
located in the desert? And for good reason -- the instructors are not
weather averse, as he claims, but you cannot learn to fly unless you
fly. Most places have too many days where the weather is below minimums
-- and surely Mr. Miller is not recommending that anyone fly in weather
like that.

Neither are "personal minimums" training to less than competency.
Aircraft vary widely in equipment, and their pilots in experience. I
have much higher personal minimums for a piston single equipped with
only one VOR and one radio than I do for a turbo-prop with a flight
director. It is not a matter of competence, it is a matter of allowing
a margine of error for equipment error or outright failure. You lose
that single VOR on the piston single in an approach to minimums and you
might as well get yourself measured for another, more permanent set of
wings.

This guy probably has a problem with the whole concept of dangerous
attitudes. If this is the way he really thinks, he is a statistic
already. He just doesn't know it yet.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Thomas Borchert]

> Incorrect statement.
>

Do yourself a favor and don't discuss this with the village idiot. This
group has been through the process numerous times. He only pretends to
be interested in learning. You won't change his mind since his belief
that he is special is rooted in the belief that he "flies" when he
plays MSFS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down other
> instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a serious
> authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
> like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for years.

Invite him to this newsgroup. He'd fit right in.

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

[Oz Lander[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:

> On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" > said:
>
> > http://overtheairwaves.com/
> >
> > I refer to the first article on this page.
>
> Settle what?
>
> I disagree with him vehemently on several points, not least the
> usefulness of view limiting devices.

I was mostly referring to his thoughts on how use of a simulator is
nothing like flying the real thing.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

Oz Lander writes:

> I was mostly referring to his thoughts on how use of a simulator is
> nothing like flying the real thing.

So you notice the parts you agree with and ignore the parts you don't?

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

[muff528]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Incorrect statement. Learning to fly on instruments also entails
>> learning to firmly shut out the "seat of the pants" sensations. The
>> "seat of the pants" sensations are not there when flying a desktop
>> computer so its incorrect to say that instrument flying can be
>> "accurately simulated" on a desktop.
>
> This only makes a difference if you are conditioned to interpret physical
> sensations in certain ways.

Everyone I know is preconditioned from birth, by the earth's gravitational
field,
to accept what we commonly know as "up" to, in fact, be "up". We then learn
to interpret the direction of the "pull" of gravity to be in the direction
opposite of "up".
Anyone without vertigo or similar physical ailment or without external input
(suchs as
changes in velocity or direction, or riding in a spacecraft in ballistic
flight) should
be able to know his orientation with his eyes closed.

Again, as a non-pilot, I would think that the primary purpose of a
simulator, in the
context of IFR flying, would be to practice navigational routines or to
familiarize
yourself with a particular a/c type so that when presented with a real-life
instrument
flying situation in that a/c the procedures are not compromised by the
increased stress
of confusing sensory inputs.

But, by reading the responses by actual pilots and instructors, I get the
sense that
sims are more useful as instructional tools for IFR than I thought.

BS, Tony P.

[muff528]

"> It might help to start with instrument flight and then continue with
visual
> flight, instead of the other way around. Of course, that might make VFR
> skills more difficult to acquire.
>

That should narrow down the flock of potential pilots. Just scare the hell
out of
them right outta the gate.

tp

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"muff528" > wrote in message
news:5xzUh.1813$xP.346@trnddc04...
<...>
> Again, as a non-pilot, I would think that the primary purpose of a
> simulator, in the
> context of IFR flying, would be to practice navigational routines or to
> familiarize
> yourself with a particular a/c type so that when presented with a
> real-life instrument
> flying situation in that a/c the procedures are not compromised by the
> increased stress
> of confusing sensory inputs.
>
> But, by reading the responses by actual pilots and instructors, I get the
> sense that
> sims are more useful as instructional tools for IFR than I thought.
>

Sims seem to be a quite useful as part of a training process if they are
accompanied with approptiate instruction. They also appear to be good for
"keeping a hand in it" if you already have some experience and training.
However, neither airplanes or sims are a good way to "learn yourself to fly
by trial and error" - while you are less likely to get killed with the sim,
you aren't really going get a good grounding in the essential basics that
you would pick up in just a few hours with an instructor (or even just
another competent pilot). One could keep at it and keep asking questions as
they come up, but without someone looking over your shoulder pointing out
when you go wrong, you don't know what questions you haven't thought of
asking - eh?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:39:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> I am convinced
> that it is harder to fly an airplane with a view limiting device than it
> is in actual instrument conditions.

There are certain aspects of instrument flying that are poorly simulated
by view-limiting devices. Two examples that come to mind are the low
approach (ie. looking for the airport rather than simply removing the
device in 10 miles visibility) and the lack of illusions such as a false
horizon from the clouds.

Just as simulation have a role, so do view limiting devices. But there's
nothing that's a *perfect* simulation for flying in IMC. That really
needs to be part of IFR training.

A friend "graduated" (passed his IFR checkride) with almost no actual
time (from one of those "get your license in 10 days" places). He was
sufficiently aware of this lack that his next step was to take one of
those "IMC flying tours" (which also sounded like a lot of fun {8^).

I worry about the IFR pilots that don't.

- Andrew

[Mark T. Dame]

muff528 wrote:
>
> Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator
> time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument
> rating".
>
> I would think that the simulator would be a good tool to acclimate the
> student to the environment prior to making the requisite 40 hours of
> actual flight time but not to replace flying time. (Is simulator time
> credited hour-for-hour?)

Flight Simulator time (or more likely Flight Training Device time, since
most pilots don't have the opportunity to use a simulator) can only be
logged when it is conducted by an authorized instructor. To that end,
the instructor should know how to properly use the simulator. By that I
mean he shouldn't just spend an hour with the student flying an enroute
course in IMC. It should be used to simulate conditions that are
dangerous to practice in a real aircraft. Things like teaching an ILS
to minimums in actually IMC or teaching how to fly a missed approach
with weather below minimums. These types of activities are much safer
taught simulated (either FTD/simulator or under the hood). A simulator
is more realistic (oddly enough) than flying under the hood. At least
as far as practicing to minimums. Even with the best hood, you get
visual cues out of your peripheral vision.

The other very useful part of using a simulator for instrument training
is practicing partial panel work. In a real airplane, the instructor
reaches over and puts a cover on your attitude indicator and directional
gyro and says you lost your vacuum pump and the back up isn't working.
OK, now you fly your approach with out them. No big deal. In a
simulator, your instructor silently fails the vacuum system and you have
to figure it out. The hardest part about flying partial panel isn't the
actual flying, but recognizing that you have in fact lost an instrument
(or two). Once you know, the rest is easy (by comparison).

Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training
devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not
games like MS Flight Simulator. My opinion is that they can serve a
very real and valuable purpose in instrument training. I wouldn't
recommend them for primary or commercial training, but for the limited
scope I've mentioned here, they are excellent tools.

I would agree with the original article, however, that their overuse is
a bad thing. There are some that make more use of them than I feel is
beneficial. Just because the regulations allow it doesn't make it a
good thing.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers
exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
and inexplicable.

There is another which states that this has already happened."
-- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams

[Mxsmanic]

Mark T. Dame writes:

> Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training
> devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not
> games like MS Flight Simulator.

You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad
attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mark T. Dame writes:
>
>> Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training
>> devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not
>> games like MS Flight Simulator.
>
> You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a
> bad
> attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs.
>

How would you know dip****, you're not even a pilot. Actually a simmer with
your underestimations of actually flight is a 100 times more dangerous.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It's a bad
> attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs.
>

You know, you should really worry about your attitudes first.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mark T. Dame]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mark T. Dame writes:
>
>> Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training
>> devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not
>> games like MS Flight Simulator.
>
> You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad
> attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs.

Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft
Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training. By that
logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've
played Grand Turismo... Or maybe I can be an astronaut because I used
to be really good at Lunar Lander. They're both based on real physics
and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good
training devices...

That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training
aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane.

(Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Individually twisted."
-- My pretzel box

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> How would you know dip****, you're not even a pilot.

Because I recognize the attitude.

> Actually a simmer with your underestimations of actually flight
> is a 100 times more dangerous.

I have a good attitude, and I'm cautious. I'd be quite a safe pilot in a real
aircraft, perhaps so safe that I'd irritate instructors.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You know, you should really worry about your attitudes first.

My attitude won't get me killed.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mark T. Dame writes:

> Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft
> Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training.

No, you show some danger signs because you are quick to vigorously dismiss
what you don't understand or don't like.

> By that logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've
> played Grand Turismo...

Have you tried it?

> They're both based on real physics
> and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good
> training devices...

They are far better than many early simulators costing much more, with much
less criticism directed at them.

> That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training
> aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane.

As pathologically cautious as I sometimes tend to be, I don't think I'd be any
danger to anyone flying a real plane. The only risk would be that I might
incur the wrath of all the macho men flying around me, although encounters
with terrain and each other might eventually filter them out.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> How would you know dip****, you're not even a pilot.
>
> Because I recognize the attitude.
>
>> Actually a simmer with your underestimations of actually flight
>> is a 100 times more dangerous.
>
> I have a good attitude, and I'm cautious. I'd be quite a safe pilot in a
> real
> aircraft, perhaps so safe that I'd irritate instructors.
>

No you don't, you are so ignorant you can even see your own attitude
problem. And you would never be able to keep an instructor with all you WAG
assumptions.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mark T. Dame writes:
>

snip - WAG assumptions and illusions of grandure
>
> --

You're a legend in your own mind Mr. Mitty.

[Gene Seibel]

On Apr 15, 8:01 am, "Oz Lander" > wrote:
> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>
> I refer to the first article on this page.
>
> --
> Oz Lander.
> I'm not always right,
> But I'm never wrong.

Don't think it settlled it. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mark T. Dame wrote:
> (Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)

*Smack!*

Now, grasshoppah, you learn value of "K" key. Press when topic go off
deep end, and all problems solved. Thunderbird good for that.

;)

TheSmokingGnu

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-16 08:43:33 -0700, "Mark T. Dame" > said:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Mark T. Dame writes:
>>
>>> Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training
>>> devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not
>>> games like MS Flight Simulator.
>>
>> You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad
>> attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs.
>
> Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft
> Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training. By that
> logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've
> played Grand Turismo... Or maybe I can be an astronaut because I used
> to be really good at Lunar Lander. They're both based on real physics
> and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good
> training devices...
>
> That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training
> aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane.
>
> (Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)
>
>
> -m

SMACK!

(Still, I want to see where AC 60-22 - Aeronautical Decision Making -
even mentions Microsoft Flight Simulator, let alone the part where it
says that refusing to use it is one of the hazardous attitudes.)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mark T. Dame]

TheSmokingGnu wrote:
> Mark T. Dame wrote:
>> (Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)
>
> *Smack!*

Thanks. I needed that.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"One of the best ways to measure people is to watch the way they
behave when something free is offered."
-- Ann Landers

[Mark T. Dame]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> (Still, I want to see where AC 60-22 - Aeronautical Decision Making -
> even mentions Microsoft Flight Simulator, let alone the part where it
> says that refusing to use it is one of the hazardous attitudes.)

It must be under Antiauthority. But what do I know. I'm not a
Certified MSFS Pilot.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I
didn't know."
-- Mark Twain

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

muff528 > wrote:
>
> "Oz Lander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>>
>> I refer to the first article on this page.
>>
>> --
>> Oz Lander.
>> I'm not always right,
>> But I'm never wrong.
>
>
> From the article-
> "Fortunately for the good guys, FAR 61.65(e) limits the use of flight
> simulators to 10 or 20 out of the required 40 hours required for the
> instrument rating. This means that the instrument student must actually fly
> a real airplane for a minimum of 20 to 30 hours in either simulated or
> actual instrument conditions."
>
> Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator
> time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument
> rating".
>
> I would think that the simulator would be a good tool to acclimate the
> student to the environment prior to making the requisite 40 hours of
>
> actual flight time but not to replace flying time. (Is simulator time
> credited hour-for-hour?)

I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Not MSFS. X-Plane.

Details about this are at http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGI7BMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv07AJ9CWBLcSEcAcb4iEcqI3k ExfeUYTACgjrVj
h0hf4Jre3/lwnzealXbYJPs=
=jqLg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve Foley]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...

> Just as simulation have a role, so do view limiting devices. But there's
> nothing that's a *perfect* simulation for flying in IMC. That really
> needs to be part of IFR training.

I read a book a few years back titled "Weekend Pilot". Some guy bought a
Cessna 120 or 140 (don't remember which) and took lessons in it. I believe
this was during the 1950's or 1960's.

When he described the instrument training, he said the instructor covered
the inside of the cockpit with orange cellophane, and had the student wear
blue glasses (it may have been blue cellophane and orange glasses) .
According to the author, this effectively blinded him to the outside world,
while allowing him to still see the instruments.

It sounded like a workable situation. Has anyone ever heard of this actually
being done? And, if so, why isn't it done now?

[Jose]

> When he described the instrument training, he said the instructor covered
> the inside of the cockpit with orange cellophane, and had the student wear
> blue glasses (it may have been blue cellophane and orange glasses) .
> According to the author, this effectively blinded him to the outside world,
> while allowing him to still see the instruments.
>
> It sounded like a workable situation. Has anyone ever heard of this actually
> being done? And, if so, why isn't it done now?

I have heard of this as an air force technique. It may be effective,
but it seems to be a pain in the neck to actually accomplish, and it
does reduce (somewhat) the view for the safety pilot.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
> know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
> an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.
>
> Not MSFS. X-Plane.
>
> Details about this are at http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

You know it's bad when you have to correct yourself! :)

Not only is it for the Airline Transport Certificate, but also
for an Instrument Rating, and Commercial Certificate. Additionally, not
only has the FAA approved this but Transport-Canada has as well.

Details about this are at the above link as well.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGI8BPyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsa0AJ4t3v4Q40tzPIoJUQYbOM xF0+NgrQCfckt7
CvxVi2kas9GthhPI+wJz8bo=
=tV+k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> My attitude won't get me killed.
>

That remains to be seen. Your life isn't too thrilling as it is, as you
repeat again and again in your blog. And the cause - surprise - may
well be your attitude.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:50:19 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

> It sounded like a workable situation.

Since I've never found a perfectly comfortable view-limiting device, I do
like the idea at least conceptually. Since I fly w/o anti-icing, it's
tough to maintain currency during the period of the year when the icing
level is below the runway w/o sticking something over my face. And I
don't especially like that.

But I don't see that this does anything to improve the realism of these
devices with regard to those illusions or visual efforts I mentioned
earlier. Am I missing this?

- Andrew

[Gary[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 12:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> My attitude won't get me killed.
>

You assume that spending every waking hour on your simulator game, or
on usenet, is risk free...

Let me suggest it isn't, if you consider your BMI and triglicerides
level...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gary wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> My attitude won't get me killed.
>>
>
> You assume that spending every waking hour on your simulator game, or
> on usenet, is risk free...
>
> Let me suggest it isn't, if you consider your BMI and triglicerides
> level...

Or the off chance that at some point he is going to display the attitude
that he displays here to someone in the real world.

[Steve Foley]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...

>
> But I don't see that this does anything to improve the realism of these
> devices with regard to those illusions or visual efforts I mentioned
> earlier. Am I missing this?

Disclaimer: I only read about this and have no practical experience.

From what I understand, you are wearing blue safety glasses. These could be
made tight against your face so everything you see has a blue tint to it.
You peripheral vision is also blue.

You have no problems seeing the instruments, they only have a blue tint to
them.

The windows are covered (on the inside) with orange cellophane/plastic. This
gives the safety pilot an orange tint to everything outside the windows.

When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is grey.

[[email protected]]

> I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
> know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
> an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.

Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

> When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is grey.

Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
apparently enough for the FAA {8^).

I'm sure that there are other examples where these devices fail to
completely simulate true IMC; those are just the examples I've noticed
(and remembered) from my own flying.

But they're why I try to do all my "practice" in real IMC.

- Andrew

P.S. Plus, as I wrote, no device I've tried is perfectly
comfortable <grin>.

[Oz Lander[_2_]]

Gene Seibel wrote:

> On Apr 15, 8:01 am, "Oz Lander" > wrote:
> > http://overtheairwaves.com/
> >
> > I refer to the first article on this page.
> >
> > --
> > Oz Lander.
> > I'm not always right,
> > But I'm never wrong.
>
> Don't think it settlled it. ;)

LOL! NO, me either!

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
> I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.

Most full-motion simulators engage in various tricks to persuade the occupants
that they are experiencing large G forces. You're correct that they cannot
produce significant G forces directly, at least not for any length of time.

G force in acceleration can be simulated by tilting the simulator in just the
right way. Gravity then pulls the occupants "backwards," producing an
acceleration vector that pretty much matches the real thing, except for
magnitude. Visual input and other factors do the rest.

For a climb, the simulator moves upwards. However, at all times it gradually
approaches a neutral position, which is gentle enough that the occupants don't
notice. The first suggestion of acceleration is enough (along with other
factors) to persuade the occupants that they are being continuously
accelerated. So the simulator moves up very briefly, and then slowly sinks
back into a neutral position. Human perception is such that the occupants
will still think they are being accelerated upward, if this motion is
accomplished correctly. Then a slight downward motion convinces them that the
acceleration is stopping. And so on.

Simulators can also move directly forward and back, from side to side, and
vertically up and down to add some additional sensations.

If you've never been in a full-motion aircraft simulator, go through the Star
Tours attraction at Disneyland, which uses full-motion simulators.

There's a way to detect that you're in a simulator. Hold your body upright
and your head straight ahead, and compensate for any movement you feel so that
you remain upright and straight ahead. If you're in a real vehicle, this will
have only a slight effect on the sensation of movement. If you're in a
simulator, it will nearly destroy the sensation of movement, and you'll
quickly perceive that you aren't really moving very much at all.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
>> I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.
>

snip --- inexperienced commentary

Luke!! Luke!! Snap out of it boy, you are talking to yourself again. Next
thing you know you will be playing with it.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-16 13:42:54 -0700, Andrew Gideon > said:

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is grey.
>
> Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
> slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
> airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
> MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
> suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
> apparently enough for the FAA {8^).

Naw, you just have the instructor breathe on your glasses to fog them up. :-)

Maybe what we really need is goggles with a little mist machine
attached so that the top half of the goggles is fogged. The bottom half
would remain clear so you could see the instruments. You could adjust
the mist machine for different levels of visibility.

Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[muff528]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007041615540316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-16 13:42:54 -0700, Andrew Gideon > said:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:
>>
>>> When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is
>>> grey.
>>
>> Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
>> slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
>> airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
>> MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
>> suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
>> apparently enough for the FAA {8^).
>
> Naw, you just have the instructor breathe on your glasses to fog them up.
> :-)
>
> Maybe what we really need is goggles with a little mist machine attached
> so that the top half of the goggles is fogged. The bottom half would
> remain clear so you could see the instruments. You could adjust the mist
> machine for different levels of visibility.
>
> Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
> current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
> however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor


Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper/less trouble to just climb into an actual
airplane and fly into an actual thunderstorm? The technology already exists
and you
wouldn't have to wait in line for your turn in the sim. And you wouldn't
have to keep filling up the little mist bottle! Someone will probably insist
that the mist
machine needs to be calibrated annually. After a couple of years the
manufacturer will re-engineer the software and you'll have to find another
mist-head that's
compatible with the new software. Of course, you will be forced to pay 3
times the price of the old mist-head (which worked perfectly fine with the
old software
until Micros.... I mean the software developer came out with their new
product.) BTW, the "instructor-breath" idea doesn't sound so hot either.
:-)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-16 17:48:53 -0700, "muff528" > said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007041615540316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-04-16 13:42:54 -0700, Andrew Gideon > said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:02:20 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you look out the windows with your blue glasses, all you see is
>>>> grey.
>>>
>>> Right. So you'd not suffer from the illusion of a false horizon from a
>>> slanted cloudscape. And you'd not be forced to struggle to see the
>>> airport environment on a low approach while avoiding dropping below the
>>> MDA. Instead, at the MAP, you whip off the blue glasses and visibility is
>>> suddenly perfect (well...as perfect as my glasses provide, which is
>>> apparently enough for the FAA {8^).
>>
>> Naw, you just have the instructor breathe on your glasses to fog them up.
>> :-)
>>
>> Maybe what we really need is goggles with a little mist machine attached
>> so that the top half of the goggles is fogged. The bottom half would
>> remain clear so you could see the instruments. You could adjust the mist
>> machine for different levels of visibility.
>>
>> Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
>> current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
>> however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
>
> Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper/less trouble to just climb into an actual
> airplane and fly into an actual thunderstorm?

BTDT. I hope never to do it again.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> at some point he is going to display the attitude
> that he displays here to someone in the real world.
>

Well, look at his real life as described on his website. The
correlation is obvious.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mike regish]

We are conditioned to interpret physical sensations in certain ways. Right
from birth. That's why, even in VMC some people get airsick. And that's why
it's so hard to ignore those sensations in IMC.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> This only makes a difference if you are conditioned to interpret physical
> sensations in certain ways.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

Some people are afraid of dying. Some are afraid of living...

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> My attitude won't get me killed.
>>
>
> That remains to be seen. Your life isn't too thrilling as it is, as you
> repeat again and again in your blog. And the cause - surprise - may
> well be your attitude.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[mike regish]

You can simulate momentary g forces, but not sustained.

mike

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> I would like to point out that (and most pilots here already
>> know this) X-Plane has been approved by the FAA for training towards
>> an Airline Transport certificate, when used in a full motion simulator.
>
> Out of curiosity, what are the limitations of a full motion simulator?
> I am guessing it can't simulate G-forces or other extreme manuevers.
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:54:03 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
> current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
> however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...

Actually, I'd bet it would work very well, at least for simulating reduced
visibility.

This could be combined with the mixed color trick to permit the entire
goggle surface to be misted in this color (or not). That's simpler (and
therefore cheaper), and it also avoids "peeking out the side" problems.

I'm not sure how well it could simulate cloudscapes, though (ie. for the
leaning horizon illusion). But, perhaps...

- Andrew

P.S. They'd still be less comfortable than "wearing" IMC, though <grin>.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> C J Campbell writes:
>
>> I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down
other
>> instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a
serious
>> authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
>> like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for
years.
>
> Invite him to this newsgroup. He'd fit right in.
>

How would you knoiw fjukktard.

You don't know one thng about real flying .

Not one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Oz Lander writes:
>
>> http://overtheairwaves.com/
>>
>> I refer to the first article on this page.
>
> It's just another expression of opinion, exactly similar to what has been
> given here.
>

You're an idiot., Go back to playing Froggit or space invaders, jerkoff.

Bertie

[Erik]

Mark T. Dame wrote:
> That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training
> aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane.
>
> (Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.)
>
>
> -m

SMACK!

MSFS is one hell of a simulator. It certainly isn't a training device,
however.

With MSFS I can land a 747 without bouncing or pancaking the damn thing
(which I still do occasionally in a tiny 150). I can also nail the
centerline in a large jet (I'm always off a bit to the left in a 150).

MSFS is great to get started, but just like anything, you HAVE to forget
all the bad habits you've taught yourself with the simulator because
real world flying is much different. A steep turn IRL is easier because
you can feel it in your ass. You can feel and see if it's too steep,
too fast, slow, whatever. In MSFS, you have to stare at the instruments
and watch the horizon and guess. Landing in MSFS is easier because it's
so damn forgiving.

You can go ahead and spend the $2,000-$4,000 on all of that high end
simulator stuff, the yoke, the rudder pedals, the instrument panel. You
can also spend upwards of $2,000 on one of those "real dolls" that will
simulate sex for you. The fantasy and the reality, in both cases (I'm
only guessing about the dolls) are far removed from each other and
should not be mistaken. (I am referring to MSFS and not an actual
training device)

Don't fall in love with your Real Doll, the arguments are bitter, bitter
affairs.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-17 08:11:08 -0700, Andrew Gideon > said:

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:54:03 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Or, instead of a mist machine, you have LCD goggles which, the more
>> current you run through them the more opaque the top half becomes. Or
>> however it is that LCDs work. Sayyy. That could actually work...
>
> Actually, I'd bet it would work very well, at least for simulating reduced
> visibility.
>
> This could be combined with the mixed color trick to permit the entire
> goggle surface to be misted in this color (or not). That's simpler (and
> therefore cheaper), and it also avoids "peeking out the side" problems.
>
> I'm not sure how well it could simulate cloudscapes, though (ie. for the
> leaning horizon illusion). But, perhaps...
>
> - Andrew
>
> P.S. They'd still be less comfortable than "wearing" IMC, though <grin>.

Perhaps Virtual Reality lenses, modified so that only the top half is
LCD, while the bottom half is clear. The instructor could then program
any weather or illusions he wanted.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:04:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

writes:
>
>> Incorrect statement. Learning to fly on instruments also entails
>> learning to firmly shut out the "seat of the pants" sensations. The
>> "seat of the pants" sensations are not there when flying a desktop
>> computer so its incorrect to say that instrument flying can be
>> "accurately simulated" on a desktop.
>
>This only makes a difference if you are conditioned to interpret physical
>sensations in certain ways.
>

my boy you are so wrong that I can only hope that you never ever get
to fly an actual aircraft in those conditions.
the shock of being exposed to reality may be just too much for you.

Stealth Pilot