The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

On Feb 28, 8:51*am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:34:16 GMT, kontiki wrote:
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)

Obtain hours in flight simulation

See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
More...enough for now.

Ye, a point I neglected to mention. We've already had one poster
here who had a disappointing discovery flight by going into it with
a severe case of overconfidence and unrealistic expectations due to
having spent so many hours 'perfecting' his technique on a simulator.

Thanks for the heads up.

Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.

Interesting opinion.

By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.

Followed by another one.

So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

First, so you can gauge how much to believe me: I am a recent Private
Pilot (April 2006) who works in the simulation industry.

Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment. Also the limited
visual area and field of view (even in a 3 screen uber-setup) causes
dependence on the instruments and prevents using many of the visual
cues which are important in VFR flying. I was quite good at instrument
flying (for a PP student) but not so hot at watching for traffic,
watching the horizon for attitude, etc.

I am now working on my instrument rating and in that environment the
simulator is helpful. I can use it to practice procedures and
sequences. Control pressures, sounds, etc. are still missing. (To be
clear: the sim makes sounds, but the cues do not match what sounds are
important in the real plane. Force feedback controls also do not match
the real world - it's a matter of energy and mass as well as
programming.)

You will hear from simulation proponents how wrong this opinion is,
but those folks (at least the loudest on these groups) do not and have
not flown a real airplane. Those of us who have done both, seem to
pretty much share this opinion. Simulation has its place, but it is
_not_ pre-solo.

John

On 2008-02-28, wrote:
Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment.

Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.

I can't fly a sim worth a damn, and it's because the muscle memory expects
feel that just isn't there.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-02-28, wrote:
Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment.

Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.

What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
wrap up my BFR, too.

On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.
What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

Four-place singles: 172, Warrior, Archer, Tiger, a few hours in a Tobago.
All 1977-1984 vintage aside from the Tobago.

I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
wrap up my BFR, too.

The stuff I flew feels just like the Sierra, according to my flying
reflexes.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.
What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

Four-place singles: 172, Warrior, Archer, Tiger, a few hours in a Tobago.
All 1977-1984 vintage aside from the Tobago.

I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
wrap up my BFR, too.

The stuff I flew feels just like the Sierra, according to my flying
reflexes.

The only thing that doesn't feel quite right is throttle on the right of
the stick. (I know there's a second throttle to the left, but its
position is a bit high to be comfortable.)

Other than that, I felt right at home. :}

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:55:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

First, so you can gauge how much to believe me: I am a recent Private
Pilot (April 2006) who works in the simulation industry.

Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment. Also the limited
visual area and field of view (even in a 3 screen uber-setup) causes
dependence on the instruments and prevents using many of the visual
cues which are important in VFR flying. I was quite good at instrument
flying (for a PP student) but not so hot at watching for traffic,
watching the horizon for attitude, etc.

I am now working on my instrument rating and in that environment the
simulator is helpful. I can use it to practice procedures and
sequences. Control pressures, sounds, etc. are still missing. (To be
clear: the sim makes sounds, but the cues do not match what sounds are
important in the real plane. Force feedback controls also do not match
the real world - it's a matter of energy and mass as well as
programming.)

You will hear from simulation proponents how wrong this opinion is,
but those folks (at least the loudest on these groups) do not and have
not flown a real airplane. Those of us who have done both, seem to
pretty much share this opinion. Simulation has its place, but it is
_not_ pre-solo.

John

John, thanks, this makes a lot of sense. I spent a chunk of years strength
and power training athletes. The f,m,a relationships you mentioned hit home
as did the cross-over training strategies (or lack thereof) in
visualization systems. Good luck on your IFR.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!