MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

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.

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

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"

Logging has nothing to do with the realism of the simulator. We have
an ancient piece of crap at the FBO which is approved for logging
time. I consider most PC simulators to be far more realistic, but they
cannot be logged. Logging has nothing to do with realism.


Jon Kraus wrote:
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game. If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

Jon

Jay Honeck wrote:
This thing was just plain as real as it gets, and (in my rusty, haven't practiced instrument flight in a long
while) I was working my butt off.

Jon Kraus writes:

Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly? In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game.

MSFS isn't exactly a computer game, although the latest version tries
to be.

If MSFS were "as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing
be logged?

For the same reason you can't just install any replacement lamp in
your aircraft.

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

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly?

Yes.

I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to Paine
Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.

The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the C-7
that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into another or
possible spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on the sim you
have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're pretty much under
the hood.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly?

Yes.

I agree with Jay. I used MFS2004 to practice a VFR flight from TTD to
Paine Field, and then set it to real-time weather (IFR) to fly back.

The next day, I made the actual flight. The flight sim didn't model the
C-7 that I got to see popping out of one cloud and disappearing into
another or possible spatial disorientation issues, but on the IFR panel on
the sim you have to ignore physical stimulus (lack thereof) and you're
pretty much under the hood.

-c


And that, IMO, really hits the nail on the head. It's how you use the
software. It isn't what MSFS brings to you, it's what you bring to MSFS.

At one end of the spectrum there are those who want to go out and fly a 747
inverted under a bridge .. at the other are those who spend both the time
and the money to immerse themselves as completely as possible via both
hardware (bleeding edge computer systems and things like the radio stack
Peter R posted about) and software (better terrain mesh, more accurate
airport scenics, etc.) When you slap that level of commitment behind three
(or more) high-quality 24" monitors using good quality control peripherals
and go to the extent of building a "Kiwi" of your own, it isn't too bad a
flight simulator exprience.

Google some screenshots taken using the best hardware/software and I think
you'd be suprised at the visual fidelity that some are able to achieve. If
you bring any desire to fly your sim "by the book" then you can (..and I do)
get satisfaction from MSFS. You may not be able to keep your body connected
to flying with MSFS but you can keep your brain in gear.

Just my $0.02 ...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Just my $0.02 ...

More like a buck and a quarter...

Well put!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jon Kraus wrote:
Oh really. Have you flown in any clouds so you can make that statement
honestly?

I've done my share of cloud flying in a variety of light airplanes, and
I agree with him. I've also used quite a few FTD's, both for my own
training and as an instructor, including a full-motion (electric) with
visuals GA FTD certified for full IPC's (and helped fine-tune the
flight model) and must say that even the basic MSFS flight model is
superior to what you get in the certified world at the GA level.

In my always humble opinion there is a huge difference
between flying IMC for real and playing a computer game.

Not really. If anything, MSFS is more difficult because the feel of
the airplane (which provides some cues) isn't there - you have to do it
on pure scan. If you can fly the IFR procedures in MSFS, you can do it
in a GA airplane - and in most GA airplanes, it will be easier.

The only real difference between doing it on MSFS vs doing it for real
is that the consequences of not doing well are a lot more severe.
Flying an actual airplane does require more money, and more guts (or
tolerance for risk, if you want to be politically correct about it) but
it does not require more skill and knowledge.

If MSFS were
"as real as it gets" then why can't your time playing be logged?

Because the decision on what can be logged is made by FAA bureaucrats -
in other words, useless bloody loonies. The relationship between FAA
regulation and common sense is far from deterministic. I've got some
experience on old-style FTD's that could be used for logging time -
they are inferior to MSFS in every respect.

MSFS is an excellent flight training tool for IFR, and is decent (but
not great) for VFR.

Michael

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1165207605.867323.172810@
73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com:

Okay, I know this one has been beaten up before -- but my eyes are now
wide open to the possibilities a sim can provide. Here are a few data
points for discussion:

1. IFR Flight

Here I have to agree with you. I found my sim time to be very valuable with
respect to Instrument training and currency. I think it's too easy to
"cheat" in real life because if you stop scanning for a moment, and the
plane starts drifting, you usually get "seat of the pants" cues to remind
you to keep up your scan. Even if the cues are the wrong direction, they
bring you out of your coma and get you back on your scan.

The simulator doesn't give you that, so if you stop your scan, it starts
drifting, and it becomes very clear that you and your plane have drifted
and demonstrates just how important it is to keep your scan going.

OTOH, I find the most disorienting part of IMC flight to be takeoff - I
believe that the same factors that cause left turning tendency also create
seat of the pants feelings that are innacurate and distracting. Combine
that with the fact that your most likely to be "out of practice" when you
first take off in IMC (as opposed to landing, when you've probably spent
some amount of time getting re-acquainted with your scan), and I think it's
easiest to get yourself into trouble on takeoff in IMC. I find that I have
to consciously make an effort to focus on my scan during takeoff in IMC,
and after the first time I found myself having trouble, I actually tell
myself outloud to stay on scan if I know I'm taking off into soup...

I think it's hard to simulate that without a full motion simulator...