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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terry