Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Simulator Time For Light GA  
User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

As I enter into the simulator block of my instrument stuff I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the Frasca and Fly it (non motion flight seems, fly it using the oh so cutting edge flight simulator 2002  Yeah sure ). I see little value in using them, and they really only serve to drive me crazy as they feel nothing like a real airplane. Patterns are impossible and they're really only good for a cheap laugh when you're 500 feet off your altitude when you come back to your altimeter during the scan. Does anyone else feel these things are as worthless as I do?


The Ohio Player
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Even a basic sim is useful as a proceedures trainer. You can learn to develop a scan and build situational awareness before you get into the plane. You already know the basics of flying the plane, now you will learn the basics of instrument flying, and later you will put the two together. I have taught both with and without the benefit of a sim. I liked using the sim not only to introduce instrument flying, but also to work on problem areas identified once we started in the plane. Even if my students hated the "box", they appreciated the money saved.


Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Well the thing is they start us off in the plane. Days ago I was able to descend at constant rate, and airspeed while turning to a heading, it's easy enough in the plane. I can keep every dial where I want it and this was after about 5 hours worth of being under the hood. Granted this is not flying in actual, and I am so far from knowing what I need to, in order to be a safe instrument pilot, to me this "step down" just seems like a waste.


The Ohio Player
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21081 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

The thing that drives me nuts about FTDs is that the feeling of motion isn't there. Some of the ones I've "flown" recently give me motion sickness because the view outside is wide enough that it looks real but still feels like I'm just sitting there.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineUnited757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1745 times:

My flight school has a full motion simulator (Motus Fidelity), which I find to be useless in anything but procedural training. There is a delay in control input, which makes it difficult to keep your altitude. Also, it is virtually impossible to stay in the pattern, because there are no "windows", only a "windscreen".

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 61
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1740 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR



I've spent LOTS of time in Frasca 142s and various ASTs. I can relate to your frustration with the lack of stability. I used one in particular that felt like a Caravan with barrels of lead rolling around in back.

As frustrating as it can be, though, sims like that require you to develop your scan. After spending time struggling with such an unstable platform, your scan goes through the roof, and that pays off in the airplane.  yes 


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

Quoting Soku39 (Thread starter):
(non motion flight seems, fly it using the oh so cutting edge flight simulator 2002   )

You actually got a screen in those simulators? In my university, the lone Frasca 141 has no screen, just a big fiberglass wall and an instrument panel - simulators without a screen [visual depiction of environment, even if you are in simulated IMC] suck worse.

This is exactly what my university's Frasca 141 looks like, minus the Garmin GPS unit in the radio stack:

http://www.aviation.uiuc.edu/main/images/PPD/sims/frasca_141_800.jpg

Really, the only value I see in it is through learning to scan the instruments and emergency procedures.

[Edited 2006-12-11 20:05:17]

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting N231YE (Reply 6):
This is exactly what my university's Frasca 141 looks like, minus the Garmin GPS unit in the radio stack:

The ones I used looked just like that, except we had a single, 19" monitor in front of the pilot.

I remember practicing flight team patterns late one night. It must have been 10 or 11pm, and I was one of the only people left in the building. I was about an hour into my practice, totally in the zone and completely oblivious to everything around me, when a knucklehead buddy of mine sneaked up to the sim and banged VERY loudly and repeatedly on the fiberglass shell.

After my heart rate stabilized, I headed home for a change of pants.


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
I was about an hour into my practice, totally in the zone and completely oblivious to everything around me, when a knucklehead buddy of mine sneaked up to the sim and banged VERY loudly and repeatedly on the fiberglass shell.

 rotfl 

They do that in my university-to (jokingly) simulate a bird strike. I know when I was practicing emergency procedures once, I was set up on an engine-out approach, and my instructor said "he had to go use the restroom." In reality, he went behind the unit, gave it a hard whack and subsequently shut it off, saying that I flew into a telephone pole.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

As 2H4 pointed out, the sim is useful. As much as I hated it as a student, I have come to respect it as an instructor. There are a lot of things that you can do in the simulator that I wouldn't dare do with a real aircraft. Systems failures that you can't duplicate in the air and wouldn't attempt to do either.

Most important at your stage in training, is developing a good instrument scan. While you did just fine under the hood in the airplane, the hood doesn't totally simulate being in the clouds. You will get spatial disorientation, and you will have trouble with your first experience in actual. With a view limiting device you can still cheat. The horizon and other things may still be percievable that prevent you from truely relying on the instruments.

Another good thing about the sim is something that you'll start to understand more as you begin doing holds and approaches. It saves a lot of time and money on your part. You blow a hold or miss the FAF? Rather than getting vectored around again, the instructor resets things. You can do two or even three approaches for every one you do in the airplane. You don't have to worry about loitering over a busy VOR (not fun IMO. For every pilot on flight following there are two that are doing their own thing) spending more time concerning yourself with traffic than with the task at hand. And again, I can't stress this one enough, you can set up situations tailored to the lesson of the day and also situations that wouldn't be safe to replicate in the air.



DMI
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

I was playing around with this the other day, and while its flight characteristcs weren't as accurate as the real aircraft (it is wayy to sensitive) it still helped with procedures, not to mention that if you could trim the FTD and get it to fly hands off, you can do it in the real thing.

User currently offlineOnetogo From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
when a knucklehead buddy of mine sneaked up to the sim and banged VERY loudly and repeatedly on the fiberglass shell.

Oh man, here at Purdue SMASHING the shell as loud as possible and yelling "BIRDSTRIKE!!!!!!!" are everyday occurances. Pretty hilarious.


User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

THIS ISN'T A SIMULATOR.

It is a procedures trainer. It was never intended to simulate flight.

Ask your instructor about the difference.


User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

There is no substitute for real IMC. FTDs are a waste of time and money and should be used by 50 year olds. If you have MS flight simulator on your hard drive there is no excuse why you should be using a FTD.

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 61
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 1553 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 13):
There is no substitute for real IMC.

None of us have argued otherwise.

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 13):
FTDs are a waste of time and money

Tell that to the major airlines that use them in their training syllabus.

By the way....have you gone through airline new-hire training? Do you have a type rating? If the answer to the above questions is no, then I don't think you're qualified to determine the value of FTDs as training aids...


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 13):
There is no substitute for real IMC. FTDs are a waste of time and money and should be used by 50 year olds. If you have MS flight simulator on your hard drive there is no excuse why you should be using a FTD.

I meant to post this is my last post but for some reason it didn't get across. If you can't see the benefit of something like this

http://www.eaa-fly.com/2.0/en/MainFlugzeugePCATD.html

Then I don't know what to tell you. Some companies like Flight Express even use much more basic PCATD's as the simulator during the interview so them must put some stock in them.


User currently offline3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 13):
If you have MS flight simulator on your hard drive there is no excuse why you should be using a FTD.

Until you can show me an OBS, radio stack, or manual trim wheel that I can change by using a mouse or keyboard shortcut, I'd suggest that your statement above is bunk.

And I'm one of the few on this forum that thinks that MSFS can actually be useful, so don't count me in with the "50 year olds" that you are mocking.

Just as you state that there is no substitute for actual IMC, neither is a 19" flat panel a substitute for using a trim wheel, resetting a DG, fiddling with switches/breakers/lights on the overhead, breaking your scan to tune a VOR, etc.

And to the original poster, I'll add that while I feel your pain (currently working on my instrument rating), many folks elsewhere - instructors and students alike - have opined that if you can master the "squirrely as hell" Frasca or Elite FTDs, then the real A/C seems calm by comparison.

And as part of the benefit of an FTD, I recall the story about a student calling the instructor over to say she thinks the "sim has a problem," when in reality she's lost vacuum and the HSI has been slowly precessing. His response - "Are you declaring an emergency?"



"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
User currently offlineUnited757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1511 times:

I used MSFS frequently before I started taking flying lessons (and I still do) and I found it to be extremely helpful in procedural training, though not so much for flight simulation. In fact, on my first lesson my instructor was very impressed with how I knew where most of the instruments were and how to work them. I always use it in between lessons and practice things I did on previous flights. I actually think that if I were to not use MSFS, it would really have an impact on my flight training.

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 5):
I've spent LOTS of time in Frasca 142s and various ASTs. I can relate to your frustration with the lack of stability. I used one in particular that felt like a Caravan with barrels of lead rolling around in back.

As frustrating as it can be, though, sims like that require you to develop your scan. After spending time struggling with such an unstable platform, your scan goes through the roof, and that pays off in the airplane. yes


2H4

 checkmark 

If there was one thing I learned in real life about the 172 while getting my instrument rating, it is that the plane seems to be very squirrely about the yaw axis in particular, and this attribute screwed up more than one ILS or LOC approach for me where I wasn't paying very close attention to my heading. The Frasca (and some devoted attention by my flight instructor  Smile ) quickly got me scanning the DG at the required rate...

However, no simulator in the world can duplicate the real life IFR experiences like finding out the inside of most cumulus clouds is a very bumpy place, what it's like to blunder into an embedded cell while on an approach (ATC told us, after we started experiencing 500-1000 FPM climbs and descents, that they were painting a level 3 cell where we were...we were IMC the whole time so we had no idea, and my instructor thought it was me being rough on the controls  Wink ), or gusty winds on the final approach course. These things require the genuine article Big grin



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 14):
By the way....have you gone through airline new-hire training? Do you have a type rating? If the answer to the above questions is no, then I don't think you're qualified to determine the value of FTDs as training aids...

Dude were talking about basic 172 instrument training.

Quoting United757 (Reply 17):
I used MSFS frequently before I started taking flying lessons (and I still do) and I found it to be extremely helpful in procedural training

 checkmark 


User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting United757 (Reply 17):
In fact, on my first lesson my instructor was very impressed with how I knew where most of the instruments were and how to work them.

That's what happened to me when I was going for the private except I my instructor didn't like that I flew the panel too much. I remember it took me a few lessons to focus my attention on the outside rather than the panel, too much FS I guess Smile


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1487 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 20):
I flew the panel too much.

This is common for pilots who have a lot of time on FS.

By the way, having flown FTDs and FS2004, I can tell you both are valuable procedural trainers and neither is a substitute for an airplane. But, a well-designed FTD is better than anything MS has put out yet. At OSH Elite had a full-panel mock-up on display ($30,000 price tag) and it was amazing. It was very close to a real plane in feel, though visual cues on the outside were difficult to use (no peripheral vision on the flare for example). It is the only FTD I've used where I felt I was doing more than just practicing procedures, but actually working on flight skills.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1186 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe a bit off topic here, but I wonder what Edwin Link would have come up with if he was alive?


"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlineUnited757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 20):
my instructor didn't like that I flew the panel too much. I remember it took me a few lessons to focus my attention on the outside rather than the panel

Same here
 Wink


User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 978 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Any one try the Baron G58/Bonanza G36 flight simulators at Flight Safety in Wichita? It's got a outside view screen and the interior cockpit is equipped with the G1000 panel.

I think its main audience are the people who buy these G1000 equipped planes and Raytheon includes the flight training at Flight Safety as part of the purchase price.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
25 Flight152 : I do, they are great in learning insturment approch procedures. Unless you have the money to poney up the money for the real thing for all the extra
26 APFPilot1985 : that is exactly what diamond has done with the FTD that I posted earlier. It is great for getting you acclimated to the aircraft and the systems befo
27 Post contains images Pilotpip : I've been flying a G36 quite a bit and I will have to say that it can't be as nice as the real thing.
28 Post contains images FLY2HMO : Lots of scuff marks in our frasca level 6 sims due to people jumping on the "cowling" I could bitch and bitch and bitch about how crappy and unrealis
29 Soku39 : I stand a little bit humbled from all the pro sim posts. I still dislike them and hate how little it resembles anything in flying, but will be looking
30 Post contains images Pilotpip : Like I said my friend, as a student I hated it. As an instructor I respect it for the valueable tool that it is. Just another way to teach a student h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Simulator Time For Light GA
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Shortest Turn Around Time For Widebody? posted Fri Apr 22 2005 01:04:54 by ETStar
Insurance Rates For Small GA posted Tue Feb 1 2005 11:21:25 by Arniepie
Logging Simulator Time posted Mon Feb 2 2004 06:31:19 by Jhooper
Logging Simulator Time. posted Mon Jul 21 2003 17:13:27 by Gordonsmall
Logging Simulator Time posted Wed Mar 19 2003 05:10:18 by Flyf15
A Revisit To Re-rengine Light GA With Turbines... posted Thu Aug 22 2002 00:53:27 by XFSUgimpLB41X
Why Flight Manual Is Not Mandatory For Light A/c? posted Wed Jan 30 2002 12:03:35 by Y_islam
If A Plane Flies For A Long Time... posted Mon Oct 23 2006 07:32:52 by United777atGU
Full Cost Of ADS-B Equipage Installation For GA posted Wed Jul 20 2005 20:43:11 by Rampoperator
How Much Time Should I Budget For A CPL? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 21:29:47 by Arch89U

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format