MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

N2310D writes:

A lot.

Okay. Describe the difference. I'm tired of hearing "it's
different," followed by silence. Describe exactly what is different.

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

There is also the subtle but very real fact that you can't produce the
fear of death in the Kiwi. Although this sounds sensational and
silly, it's truly not -- since when you're flying a real airplane, your
life (and the lives of your loved ones) are literally in your own
hands.

Fear of death is a great reason to remain with a simulator. Why would
anyone want to be terrified of dying?

In order to live.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Basically the only way I will ever convince you is for you to come fly
the damned thing. You'll be amazed, I think.

next time I'm there... but probably not for 3-4 years, at least.

Ah -- you'll be here for the kick-off of the "holodeck" version...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

OK -- let's start properly defining terms here, in regard to FAA
(and probably JAA) ground rules. Doesn't matter how Microsoft
brands and markets it's software, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is
NOT a simulator. It's a game.

The FAA blesses PCATDs when administered by a CFI(I) under certain
rules. A "simulator" is one of those multi-million dollar (or euro)
hardware & software environments, such as used by Flight Safety
and the airlines and NASA. These may or may not be full-motion, but
often are.

I have operated United's 737 sim, the STS (Space Shuttle), and
the Apollo simulator. (My employer, many years/decades ago, did a
great deal of the software and displays -- I got to have a great time).
The Apollo sim was full-size. Required a 3-story area, just for the
unit, not counting all the computer equipment needed. No, that
one wasn't full motion.

There are a number of people on this newsgroup that for various reasons
(company and/or insurance) pay Flight Safety and similar companies a
great deal of money each year. To put MSFS into the same category as
Flight Safety is absurd.

Now, with that in mind, I agree with Jay and others that using MSFS
is a great tool for learning concepts such as IFR scan, reviewing
terrain and airports that you haven't encountered yet, etc.

Blanche writes:

Doesn't matter how Microsoft
brands and markets it's software, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is
NOT a simulator. It's a game.

It's a simulator. There is no "official" definition of a simulator
versus a game, and MSFS far more closely resembles other simulators
than other games.

I have operated United's 737 sim, the STS (Space Shuttle), and
the Apollo simulator. (My employer, many years/decades ago, did a
great deal of the software and displays -- I got to have a great time).
The Apollo sim was full-size. Required a 3-story area, just for the
unit, not counting all the computer equipment needed. No, that
one wasn't full motion.

Then how could it possibly be of any use to astronauts? Everyone
knows that, without full motion, it doesn't count.

There are a number of people on this newsgroup that for various reasons
(company and/or insurance) pay Flight Safety and similar companies a
great deal of money each year. To put MSFS into the same category as
Flight Safety is absurd.

To put MSFS in the same category as Grand Theft Auto is no less
absurd.

Now, with that in mind, I agree with Jay and others that using MSFS
is a great tool for learning concepts such as IFR scan, reviewing
terrain and airports that you haven't encountered yet, etc.

How can that be, if it's just a game? Games entertain; simulators
teach.

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

Jay Honeck writes:

In order to live.

You can live more comfortably without being terrified.

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

In order to live.

You can live more comfortably without being terrified.

Part of the allure of flying (to me) has always been the feeling of
conquering death in some visceral way. Because of this, I feel more
alive in the air than anywhere else. That's what I mean by saying "In
order to live".

The ability to use your skills and intellect to do something that is
completely unnatural for humans to do -- and survive -- carries with it
a thrill that simply can't be duplicated. This is why pilots often
laconically remark "It ain't golf..." when asked what it's like to fly.


The bottom line is this: We can live, or we can wait to die. I choose
the former, and -- in my world -- that means flying. In the end, as
much as I'm thrilled with the way the Kiwi performs, it will never,
ever duplicate that feeling for me.
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?


Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than
the
non-sim student.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF


Hi Tom;

Reference;
"PCATDs?which, as far as Hampton is concerned, include both FAA-certified
PCATDs and off-the-shelf products like Microsoft Flight Simulator?are
restricted to teaching cognitive activities such as holding patterns and
approach procedures, where they can provide practical experience, practice,
and reinforcement. The university relied heavily on PCATDs during the first
private/instrument class, and experienced some negative learning. For
example, the computer?s performance didn?t always match that of the actual
aircraft, especially during slow flight and stalls. Also, if the monitor
isn?t properly sized and positioned, it can lead to poor scanning habits."


There is a key paragraph in this report that hints toward a most important
aspect in the use of desktop simulators in flight training; that being the
fact that they can not at this point in time duplicate the actual control
pressures required in the real airplane. The actual physical cues involved
in flying a specific actual aircraft are considered as critical factors for
the pre-solo student and must be experienced. The input from the desk top
simulator of familiarization with control DIRECTION is fine and should be
considered a training asset up to a point. That point is when the beginning
student must start the process of learning control PRESSURES.

Although there is reason to believe that this technology may be forthcoming
down the line, it is still the opinion of many QUALIFIED instructors in the
training community (myself included) that because of this single factor
involving the familiarization with control PRESSURES in the aircraft being
used for the instruction, the use of desk tops between the period spanning
the first hour of dual through the first solo should be discouraged.

The periods both before and after this period is where the desktops can be
quite useful and complimentary to the training environment.

Addendum; if Mxmanic underposts this reply, please excuse my not dealing
with it directly. If you or anyone else on the forum would like to discuss
this issue with me, please post freely and I'll be most happy to answer.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
Flight Instructor Retired
[MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
The point is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly
better than the non-sim student.

Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?

Jose

Jose, et al...

As a sim user for many, many years and now a PP-ASEL for the last two years,
I can tell you that yes, there are sim induced bad habits to be broken when
you go fly for real.

Probably the most egregious is panel fixation and not flying "head up."
It took several raps to the back of the head with a rolled up sectional to
get me to quit looking inside and learn to fly by reference to the view
outside. The interesting thing is that now when I spend any time with MSFS,
I find myself really frustrated at how lacking FS is when it comes to being
able to see "outside."

Another one that I had to unlearn was a casual disregard for systems status.
One just doesn't take into consideration things like oil temp/pressure, fuel
flow, suction, etc when one is in front of a computer screen.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
N2310D writes:

A lot.

Okay. Describe the difference. I'm tired of hearing "it's
different," followed by silence. Describe exactly what is different.

Well, no I won't.
Since you have in the past not been willing to accept statements
provided by experienced pilots and, on several occasions not been willing to
back up your own cryptic statements and told us that you've done your
research to get your information and we should do likewise, I think it is
appropriate for me to tell you that you need to go for a ride in an airplane
and find out for yourself.
I am NOT going to give you an opportunity to impugn my hard earned
knowledge in your typical puerile manner. Take it or leave it, or go for a
ride.