Dennis Johnson wrote:

I offered the following definition of "flying" in my previous post:

"If a person is sitting in front of an instrument panel manipulating
controls
whose performance is based on aerodynamic principles, that's flying. It
might be flying a simulator, but it's still flying."

What's your definition?

Dennis



I've never given this much thought. I have been through stages of this
stuff in my long career:

1. F-100 fligher simulator, without motion. The Air Force indeed called
it a simulator because the cockpit was a real F-100, aerodynamics, etc,
but there was no visual nor any way to really to takeoffs or landings.
(I was not a USAF pilot, rather an elisted guy who had a lot of access
to the simulator; i.e. simulator technican with private pilot's license).

2. Air Force C-11, similar to a T-33 with ILS, DME Zero Reader, etc.
Great navigation and flight procedures trainer. No autopilot so it had
to be hand-flown.

3. "Demo" or some such name, no motion, large single-engine trainer.
Sort of like a Beaver. Can't remember the name of the bird but the
pilot-rated desk jockys flew it 4 hours a month to maintain flight pay.

4. Classic Link C-3.

5. Went with the airline when they had non-motion simulators, which were
approved for only a portion of Part 121 training. The nitty-gritty had
to be done in the actual airplane.

6. Then, Level D simulators with full motion, approved visual, and were
used for all training, including rating ride. Also, for all proficiency
checks, etc.

7. Retired and have taken several ICCs in ATDs, which I found very
effective for that purpose.

Of all these, what came to the closest to flying to me? The Level D
flight simulators, no question about it. But, even they lack a lot of
what really happens in the real world of flying the actual aircraft they
simulate.