On Simulators as assist to IFR training.

[Gosh I hope this doesn't start a ridiculous thread]. xoxo.

Anyways, I'm working on my IFR ticket. I'm about 12 hours simulated and
actual instrument time in a real airplane, and able to put in about
another hour in a week. No problem "flying" the plane on the
instruments, but I find that putting everything together often results
in too much workload, and in particular, I feel I get a little rusty
with only an hour a week. But that's all I can fit in given the wx, a
job, and availability of a safety pilot or CFII...

Also, something happens when I put that hood on and fly that detracts
about 40 IQ points. I can figure heading reciprocals and for that
matter some trig in my head no sweat here on my chair. But tell me to
"hold on the 235 radial, right turns" and the GPS is saying I'm so many
degrees, miles to that VOR, and watch your six-pack of instruments,
while briefing for that NDB approach at the end of the hold; well I get
stumped and think like an inch a hour. I'm finding that regular
practice a few times a week is making that all better.

Any thoughts on simulators relative to ASA IP Trainer to keep in the
thought process and procedure of doing what I need to do?

I use ASA IP Trainer -- it seems quite good, but the product appears to
be very unsupported. The simulation experience -- visuals and control,
kinda sucks. It is nice however, in particular, the "CFII" behind the
scenes on ASA expects methodical precision more than any human
instructor which helps enforce the rhythm. E.g. if you set the
intercept radial before setting the timer (who cares, right), you'll get
a pile of crap about it and have to back up and do it in the right sequence.

My question: Can anyone contrast this with MSFS or XPlane for this
purpose? I'd be willing to invest in something better, but I don't have
the time to poke around for another simulator unless I know it will be
an improvement.

Thanks!
Tman

I use ASA's On Top v9 trainer because it's inexpensive and provides a
good training environment - i.e. you can set the winds, do a random
fail on instruments and other components, etc. I have the rating but
use it to help maintain proficiency when I can't get out in the plane
regularly enough in realy IMC.

I've heard good reports about both MSFS and Xplane but haven't used
them. I've tried MSFS but find all the scenery just superfluous to
flying in clouds.

The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
communication, and I recommend it.

Paul H writes:

The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
communication, and I recommend it.

You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
corresponds precisely to the real thing.

In article ,
says...


Paul H writes:

The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
communication, and I recommend it.

You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
corresponds precisely to the real thing.

"Precisely" is unfortunately a relative term.
Misinterpretion by pretentious, testosterone-driven simulator pilots usually
results in death.

-b- writes:

"Precisely" is unfortunately a relative term.

Try it and see.

In article ,
says...


-b- writes:

"Precisely" is unfortunately a relative term.

Try it and see.

Quaint, but inadequate.
If I posted this it's because I've tried and seen - quite enough.


It is fortunate for passengers that you are not in charge of their
safety. This task is left to professionals, who are required to have
regular contact with the world of the living.

Clark writes:

Try flying a real aircraft and see.

What does that have to do with ATC? I'm already better at radio
communications than many private pilots are.

On Mar 4, 4:09*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Paul H writes:
The one thing you don't get is comm experience - there is a Comm DVD
that's available through Sporty's to practice various types of ATC
communication, and I recommend it.

You can get superlative comm experience by joining VATSIM or IVAO, which
allows you to simulate flights with real people providing ATC by voice that
corresponds precisely to the real thing.

As a matter of general interest, there are a number of sites that
offer real links to real time ATC communications. If a novice wants
experience, he or she can listen in, assume the identity of an
aircraft, and practice keeping up with instructions issued to it. That
is real, not sim.

On Mar 3, 7:22*pm, Paul H wrote:
I use ASA's On Top v9 trainer because it's inexpensive and provides a
good training environment - i.e. you can set the winds, do a random
fail on instruments and other components, etc. *I have the rating but
use it to help maintain proficiency when I can't get out in the plane
regularly enough in realy IMC.

I've just been looking at that programme and must say it doesn't seem
to do anything that MSFS does.
http://store.tailwinds.com/on-top-if...imulators.html

I'm sure its good but believe like a lot of software titles if you
stick a 'commercial' genre to a piece of software you can seriously
inflate the price. I use Autocad in my line of work and because it's
commercial Autodesk can charge £3000+ for the privilage of using it.
FSX models IFR fairly well and again with a good flight planning
program has a lot to offer for half the price. I'd really be
interested to know why some software titles are more supported than
others in official training.

Most payware aircraft, particularily the big airliners, can generate
1000s of potential faults from engine failure to instrumentation
problems with a procedural checklist to be followed to rectify the
problem (if possible)

Ibby

I think that being in the airplane knocks a lot of IQ points off for
most of us. Its just a very distracting environment. If you can get
the procedures down with the simulator and then try to get some actual
I think that would help. It seems like there is a lot going on but
there are a lot of patterns to what is happening. I find that its
great for students to just go out and hold in IMC for 30 minutes too.
We tend to focus so much on approaches but you'll actually log most of
your IMC in cruise.

-Robert, CFII

On Mar 3, 7:19*am, Tman wrote:
[Gosh I hope this doesn't start a ridiculous thread]. xoxo.

Anyways, I'm working on my IFR ticket. *I'm about 12 hours simulated and
actual instrument time in a real airplane, and able to put in about
another hour in a week. *No problem "flying" the plane on the
instruments, but I find that putting everything together often results
in too much workload, and in particular, I feel I get a little rusty
with only an hour a week. *But that's all I can fit in given the wx, a
job, and availability of a safety pilot or CFII...