MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

Actually, I've found this is NOT true. What I *thought* were bad
flight models was actually the computer lagging just a split
millisecond behind my control inputs. It was imperceptible, and
everything *looked* smooth -- but it was obviously there.

When we hooked everything up to a truly world-class computer, the
impact was immediate and everyone noticed it. Suddenly, the "flight
models" were dead-on, because the controls were finally responding in
real time.

Can you do a soft-field take-off with it?

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

writes:

Can you log it? No, for one the flight models are rubbish.

This changes with a few expensive add-ons. The standard MSFS aircraft
are compromises, but you can but add-ons that are just like the real
thing ... so much better, in fact, that it's not unlike having a
completely new simulator.

Is it worth paying 5 bucks to a student who can take flight simulator
and see what they can do about flying approaches, especially DME arcs
etc on a sim, which they can pause and see whats going on, instead of
doing it cold turkey in an airplane the first time burning valuable
time and too busy doing the next thing before they grasp the last
thing? Yeah, the 5 bucks goes a long way.

You can also analyze your flights in MSFS, to see just how closely you
followed your intended course or pattern. I do that all the time.
You can see how consistent your climbs and descents are, how smooth
your turns are, how well you can stay in a holding or traffic pattern,
how well you can hold a course over a long distance, etc.

You can also dial up whatever weather you want, including weather that
would be far too dangerous to train in in real life. Want to see if
you can land in a 40-knot crosswind? No problem. Want fog so thick
you can't see the nose of your own aircraft? Coming right up. Have a
particular blend of IMC or VMC that you'd like to try out but that
never seems to actually occur in your neck of the woods? That's easy
to do, too.

Do you need to learn how to use a GPS? The GPS simulations in some
add-on aircraft are _identical_ to the real thing: you can literally
step away from the sim and use the real GPS on a real aircraft without
missing a beat. A great many other instruments behave identically.

Flight models can be very accurate if you purchase add-ons that are
optimized to match the real aircraft as closely as possible. If you
want to spend ten minutes starting the engines on a 737, that's
possible, too. If you like programming an FMS and then watching it
fly the aircraft for you, you can do that.

All of this would be cripplingly expensive and time-consuming--and
sometimes impossible--in a real aircraft. If you've spent tens of
thousands of dollars on real flight, why deprive yourself of
simulation that you could have for just a few dollars more?

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

Judah writes:

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

For IFR, a simulator with no motion would also be useful. You may
have to learn to ignore distracting sensations, but it's also useful
to learn to fly with no sensations at all. After all, in IMC you may
not have distracting sensations--you may simply feel that your in
comfy, level flight, even as the plane turns or does other unwanted
things. I've seen a lot of discussion of spatial disorientation, but
none of simply losing all cues altogether, even though that would be
quite an issue in IMC flight.

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

Judah wrote:
"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...

ISTR a (former?) regular on this group that ran one of those out of PA.
Haven't seen him post on here in ages, though. Nice guy. Richard
(sorry, last name escapes me right now)...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I shot a full approach into Cedar Rapids (CID) terminating in an ILS to
Rwy 9 at minimums. By the time I broke out, after flying the published
procedure, I was sweating! 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.

Yep. I often shoot practice approaches on FS2004 before doing the exact
approaches in the actual airplane, or if the weather isn't complaint
(Columbia Gorge winds, usually) and I have to cancel a practice flight.


-c

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.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
big snip

I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.


I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
instrument procedures trainer.

Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Well MSFS I'm sure can be fun. And I'm equally sure it can provide a lot of
learning lessons. And, no doubt, help you with IFR procedures. Plus when you
push on this, the airplane does that...

However, I think you would agree that sittting in front of a computer by
yourself (no instructor, no pilot in the other seat to learn from) won't
teach you how to fly.

For example. There is a person who frequents this news group who claims to
have been flying MSFS for "years" and apparently puts a great deal of
thought and effort into it, but looking at this thread alone I find:

"I collapsed the nose gear landing at KCID just last night, after an
ILS approach to runway 27."

"Only a few days earlier, in similarly gusty weather, I lost all the
gear landing in fog at Logan International."

"I've tried engine failures on a number of occasions, although mostly
in the Baron. That and attempts with failures in a single-engine
plane have taught me that engine failures need to be avoided at all
costs. Particularly with just one engine, there's a good chance that
you won't make it, period."
From other threads it is very clear that this person lacks basic pilotage
skills and has to rely on the gauges to navigate. He also doesn't seem to
understand how someone gets disoriented in the air. And, with some effort, I
could probably find other shortcomings with his skills.

Clearly "learn yourself flying" from MSFS isn't working.

NOTE: Let me be VERY clear, I'm not trying to pick on anyone - I am trying
to look at the process, not the person. I'm sure that the effort expended in
trying to learn has been sincere, but the results appear to be spotty at
best.

It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
it doesn't replace it.

Geoff OUT.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I've been using our hotel's night manager (a fellow we've taken flying
a couple of times, but who has no flight training experience) as a
guinea pig, and he has really progressed nicely in just a few days of
practice. Not only is he now able to land the sim reliably, but he has
learned an awful lot about basic flight procedures and conditions
during various portions of flight -- without burning a gallon of avgas.

I knew it!! You guys are sticking Mary doing room and tax balancing the
night audit while you two go and play with the new toy!!!
:-))
Dudley

It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

Oh, absolutely. You guys seem to think that I'm advocating doing away
with the flight school here in Iowa City -- and that's far from what I
believe. Nothing will replace an instructor and a real airplane.

But, on the other hand, to dismiss the Kiwi as a mere "game" is to
unfairly minimize what we've accomplished here. As an example, last
night (at Movie Night) a young pilot (they DO exist!) showed up, not to
see the movie ("Flying Tigers", BTW) but to fly the Kiwi.

He flew for 20 minutes or so, made some nice approaches into Mackinac
and Madeline Islands, and had a great time. He then pronounced the
Kiwi as superior to the mega-thousand dollar, PC-based flight sim at
the flight school.

Since the time on that machine CAN be logged, what does that say about
the Kiwi?

I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
it doesn't replace it.

No one (with any brains) ever suggested otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Jay Honeck wrote:
It seems obvious to me, that one really needs to spend some time in an
airplane with another pilot to get the basics down. Your manager has had the
benefit of watching others as well as having you standing over his shoulder
coaching him, - right? That's a far cry from "trial and error" learning on
your own - that's a tough row to hoe. (Note that no one ever calls it "trial
and succeed".) Jay, would you agree that stepping into an airplane would
still be a chalenge for your manager? And, (again with someone instructing
or coaching) would it give his skills a big boost?

Oh, absolutely. You guys seem to think that I'm advocating doing away
with the flight school here in Iowa City -- and that's far from what I
believe. Nothing will replace an instructor and a real airplane.

But, on the other hand, to dismiss the Kiwi as a mere "game" is to
unfairly minimize what we've accomplished here. As an example, last
night (at Movie Night) a young pilot (they DO exist!) showed up, not to
see the movie ("Flying Tigers", BTW) but to fly the Kiwi.

He flew for 20 minutes or so, made some nice approaches into Mackinac
and Madeline Islands, and had a great time. He then pronounced the
Kiwi as superior to the mega-thousand dollar, PC-based flight sim at
the flight school.

Since the time on that machine CAN be logged, what does that say about
the Kiwi?

I think this kind of simulator can _augment_ training in an aircraft, but
it doesn't replace it.

No one (with any brains) ever suggested otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Jay I agree with you in 95% of what you've said throughout this
discussion, there is one person I don't agree with who is a pain and is
now in my killfile (not a literal gung-ho rambo killfile, just a file
on my computer that blocks messages, I want to be clear on that before
the FBI shows up at my building).

I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
but it's not the same.

I will not agree with you, however, in saying that a sim flight model
can be close to the real thing, it's a great piece of entertainment and
can be faily engaging, but let's be honest, it just doesn't act the
same in MSFS as it would in real life, it can be misleadingly close,
but it's not the same.

Well, I can only offer an invitation to come fly the Kiwi.

If, after pulling up to the gas pumps (really!) at little Sylvania
Field (C89) in Racine County, WI, having just sweated your way through
a cross-wind landing on that 30-foot-wide, 2300-foot-long runway,
(after taking a lakefront-tour of Racine), you *still* think that this
thing isn't as real as it gets (outside of an airplane) -- I'll buy the
beer.

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