Simulators

A bit of neophite comment on simulators.

Some years ago I bought a Microsoft simulator, played with it a while and
relegated it to a young friend. I'll say this - I wish I had this when I
first started chasing instruments for certification. The first major hurdle,
at least in my case, was continuously scanning the instruments and
automatically making control adjustments. I tended to concentrate and adjust
on one reading too long. Attention deficit disorder? The first hours were
agony. With the simulator, I believe I could have shortened dual flight time
considerably, and I know I could have suffered less punishment.

Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but recovery
from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the controls.
How one reacts psycologically to suddenly looking straight at the ground, or
the sudden appearence of the inverted treeline is a big factor. We lost a
pilot and his passenger some years ago when he let a 150 stall out on
takeoff, and spun into the ground. The instructor who taught him to fly
quietly suggested that he tended to panic if the plane did not act as he
anticipated. This, of course, was not in the official report. And it was
speculation on his part.

I can't see simulators preparing a pilot for instant and automatic recovery
from unanticipated emergencies - the adrenilin factor just ain't the same.
Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a
sim into the left seat.

birdog writes:

Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but recovery
from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the controls.

If you use top-quality add-on aircraft in MSFS, you can get extremely accurate
simulation of instrument behavior.

Because of the high cost of visuals (both in processing time and in the size
of the database required), visuals are still the weakest part of desktop
simulation, although they are good enough to use for pilotage. It's often more
a question of not being pretty rather than not being accurate.

MSFS is not designed to simulate unusual attitudes with high accuracy. X-Plane
is supposedly better, but the flip side is that it is potentially less
accurate with respect to normal flight in specific aircraft, since it spends
more time calculating and less time looking things up in comparison to MSFS.

How one reacts psycologically to suddenly looking straight at the ground, or
the sudden appearence of the inverted treeline is a big factor.

The key is avoidance, not recovery. A pilot who is competent and stays ahead
of the airplane is less likely to find himself in situations that may panic
him. Minimizing accidents means avoiding the situations that lead to them;
trying to recover from those situations after falling into them is much less
effective.

I can't see simulators preparing a pilot for instant and automatic recovery
from unanticipated emergencies - the adrenilin factor just ain't the same.

Simulators normally aren't used that way. Like flight in a real airplane, a
simulator teaches pilots to avoid problems in the first place. Being expert
at recovering from a spin isn't nearly as useful for safety as being expert at
avoiding spins.

Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a
sim into the left seat.

The day will come. Economics and technology virtually guarantee it. The role
of simulation in all types of training, especially training for operation of
vehicles, has been in constant expansion ever since the first simulators were
built.

Mxsmanic wrote:
birdog writes:

Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but recovery
from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the controls.

If you use top-quality add-on aircraft in MSFS, you can get extremely accurate
simulation of instrument behavior.

Because of the high cost of visuals (both in processing time and in the size
of the database required), visuals are still the weakest part of desktop
simulation, although they are good enough to use for pilotage. It's often more
a question of not being pretty rather than not being accurate.

The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.

The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.

snip

Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a
sim into the left seat.

The day will come. Economics and technology virtually guarantee it.

Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"birdog" wrote in message
...
I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a sim into the left seat.

One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
fails .

Vaughn

On May 14, 8:19*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
"birdog" wrote in message

...

I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a *sim into the left seat.

One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! *As an initial test of
any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
takeoff, pattern, and landing. *If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
fails .

Vaughn

I did exactly that. I have several thousand hours in an M20J, flew the
sim version. The thrill was gone! To be fair, I know the control
positions in the real Mooney, the keyboard and joystick crap in the
sim didn't work well for me. For that matter, d r in the sim -- no
nav for a while -- was awful. I couldn't easily find my home airport!

I did loop the sim, something I'd not do in the real thing. Having
flown some aerobatics, the sim loop didn't work well for me. No
lightening of the shoulder harness going over the top, no increased Gs
on the bottom half.

I fly enough actual IMC so don't need the sim to learn how to keep
needles where they should be, and unusual attitude recovery practice
is much more real with a safety pilot than in a sim. (My safety pilot
friend is a fiend. When he says "It's your airplane" you can be sure
things are pretty much at limits and your inner ear has no idea which
way is up. Of course I do the same thing to him.)

I sold my MSFS to a guy who bought it for his kid.

vaughn wrote:
"birdog" wrote in message
...
I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a sim into the left seat.

One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
fails .

Vaughn



The FAA requires something more elaborate on the big (even small) jets.
The control forces in representative phases of flight must match
DYNAMICALLY the records taken on a representative aircraft. The
aerodynamic behavior at the usual points on the envelope is reviewed,
i.e. for a static pitch stability demonstration, a dynamic pitch
stability demonstration and many others. These are arranged by a step
input in pitch then a release, to watch the overshoot behavior when trim
attitude is regained. These can amount to several hundred verification
maneuvers, all set up automatically and plotted against aircraft data.
This is repeated in three axes, for yaw and roll too...
Pilot subjective evaluations are avoided so far as possible, because
succeeding pilots will offer somewhat contradictory views. Give us the
facts, Ma'am.

Brian W

writes:

The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.

All visuals are _something_ like reality; it's only a matter of degree.

MSFS actually has better visuals than some more expensive simulators, because
visuals are costly to generate and not all simulation applications require a
realistic rendering of the world through the windows.

The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.

Yes. But for many types of flying, the physical forces are irrelevant. MSFS
is a poor choice for aerobatics, though.

Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.

I'm not sure what you mean by "totally simulate actual flight." Fighter pilots
(and occasionally airline pilots) leave simulators soaked with sweat, so it
would seem that they get a pretty good simulation.

People who aren't told otherwise sometimes believe they are actually going
somewhere on rides like Star Tours, even though they never leave the room
(this particular attraction uses full-motion simulators).

vaughn writes:

One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
fails .

Even a properly configured desktop simulator can often pass this test.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.

All visuals are _something_ like reality; it's only a matter of degree.

MSFS actually has better visuals than some more expensive simulators, because
visuals are costly to generate and not all simulation applications require a
realistic rendering of the world through the windows.

What part of the visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least
three screens so when you look out the side window you see the view on that
side of the aircraft did you not understand?

This has nothing to do with generated "visuals".

The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.

Yes. But for many types of flying, the physical forces are irrelevant. MSFS
is a poor choice for aerobatics, though.

Yeah, physical forces are mostly irrelevant for teaching procedures, but
that doesn't change the fact that the weakest part of desktop simulation
is the total absense of any of the physical forces you will feel flying a
real airplane.


Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.

I'm not sure what you mean by "totally simulate actual flight." Fighter pilots
(and occasionally airline pilots) leave simulators soaked with sweat, so it
would seem that they get a pretty good simulation.

People leave The Taco Hut soaked with sweat.

Nice try at dodging the issue.

People who aren't told otherwise sometimes believe they are actually going
somewhere on rides like Star Tours, even though they never leave the room
(this particular attraction uses full-motion simulators).

Some people, like you, are easily deluded.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
vaughn writes:

One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
fails .

Even a properly configured desktop simulator can often pass this test.

Only if previously briefed on things like which buttons to push if you
want to see out of the side window.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.