Simulators

The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of flying!

In article ,
"Birdog" wrote:

The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of flying!

I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
monsters our friend thinks they are.

I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
thought of it, and are able.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
instructor and a curriculum.

Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Steve Roberts

Birdog writes:

The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio control
and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
boring.

How far have you gone with simulation, and what type of flying did you do
before you were grounded?

There's a very wide range between the simplest flight simulation (which would
probably be Google Earth or the Easter egg inside, I think, Excel), and the
best certified, full-motion simulators used for loggable training and
practice. It depends mainly on how much money you want to put into it. The
more you spend, the greater the realism.

The degree to which you can gain satisfaction from simulation depends also on
what part of flying you like best. If physical sensations are the best part
for you, it's going to be hard to get that from simulation. If procedures are
the part you like, you can simulate that pretty effectively.

What medical condition grounded you?

Also, do you ever fly with someone else as PIC?

However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments until
it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions sometimes
elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have a
valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking about
computers?

Mike Ash writes:

... have you considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and
no medical is required.

Really? (I've never looked.) That seems odd ... isn't an incapacitated pilot
in a glider in just as much danger as he would be in a powered aircraft? And
can't he still hit things and injure people and property on the ground? I
thought that was the whole idea behind requiring medicals.

Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes.

What do you think of glider simulations in MSFS?

I've heard that there are some add-on gliders for MSFS that are greatly
superior to the default (as there are for powered aircraft), but I haven't
looked into it as I've not felt very attracted to gliding. Gliding seems to
be mostly a visceral and visual experience, both of which are weak points of
desktop simulators.

writes:

Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
instructor and a curriculum.

Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Most simmers won't be flying a real aircraft, so the differences between the
simulation and real life are not necessarily important (although that depends
on the simmer's viewpoint, as some are more rigorous about realism than
others). And, since nobody is likely to climb out of his easy chair and into
a cockpit without instruction and certification, one can assume that the
differences would be identified and compensated for by anyone who really wants
to fly an aircraft in the real world.

What mystifies me is the knee-jerk reaction of some pilots to the mere
suggestion that simulation is anything like real life. I can only assume that
they invest a great deal of their self-esteem in flying, and are very insecure
about anything that might hint that any other activity is even remotely close
to flying. They like to believe that they are special, and anything that
seems to erode that illusion in their eyes disturbs them.

As I've said before, the more experience pilots have, the less they tend to
foam at the mouth in fury when simulation is brought up. Simulation is not
identical to real life, but it's not a waste of time, either. The truth is in
between. Moderation is best in all things.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
instructor and a curriculum.

Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Most simmers won't be flying a real aircraft, so the differences between
the
simulation and real life are not necessarily important (although that
depends
on the simmer's viewpoint, as some are more rigorous about realism than
others). And, since nobody is likely to climb out of his easy chair and
into
a cockpit without instruction and certification, one can assume that the
differences would be identified and compensated for by anyone who really
wants
to fly an aircraft in the real world.

What mystifies me is the knee-jerk reaction of some pilots to the mere
suggestion that simulation is anything like real life. I can only assume
that
they invest a great deal of their self-esteem in flying, and are very
insecure
about anything that might hint that any other activity is even remotely
close
to flying. They like to believe that they are special, and anything that
seems to erode that illusion in their eyes disturbs them.

As I've said before, the more experience pilots have, the less they tend
to
foam at the mouth in fury when simulation is brought up. Simulation is
not
identical to real life, but it's not a waste of time, either. The truth
is in
between. Moderation is best in all things.

To the contrary, you just can't stand it because your PC can never make you
a pilot.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Ash writes:

... have you considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and
no medical is required.

Really? (I've never looked.) That seems odd ... isn't an incapacitated
pilot
in a glider in just as much danger as he would be in a powered aircraft?
And
can't he still hit things and injure people and property on the ground? I
thought that was the whole idea behind requiring medicals.

Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes.

What do you think of glider simulations in MSFS?

I've heard that there are some add-on gliders for MSFS that are greatly
superior to the default (as there are for powered aircraft), but I haven't
looked into it as I've not felt very attracted to gliding. Gliding seems
to
be mostly a visceral and visual experience, both of which are weak points
of
desktop simulators.

Everything seems odd to you, you have never experienced any facet of real
life.

Get out of your cave.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking
about
computers?

Yeah, so STFU.

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Birdog" wrote:

The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since being
grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio
control
and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not downright
boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning time
and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments
until
it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions
sometimes
elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs have
a
valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of
flying!

I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
monsters our friend thinks they are.

I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
thought of it, and are able.

Diabetes got me. I have flown in gliders (once - not PIC). I dunno - you
can't really go anywhere in a glider, and somehow the thrust, the engine
noise and vibration were a part of the mystique. Just didn't pull my chain.
Academic now anyhow - I'm 82 years old.