"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
.net...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
68...
"Earl Grieda" wrote

The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim
training are better than students without Flight sim training.

But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.


The impression I get is that it is used right from the start. The
individual who pioneered it, and convinced the Navy of its value, had
never
flown a plane but felt he needed some way to catch up with his peers
who had
already flown.

"Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval
Academy
graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into
Naval
flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found
himself at
a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program—many of his
classmates
had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
pilots.

Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft’s
Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation
of
the Beech T–34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added
local
landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him
with
situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the
customized
simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.

His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near
the top
of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer
gaming
software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received
above-average
flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator
98—modified
with a software shell, much like Lacy’s version—to all of its flight
students."

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

The Navy is having the same issues with simulators as the rest of the
aviation community. The sim has some use as an "augmentation", and I
stress the term "augmentation" because the Navy realizes quite clearly
that desktop simulation can NOT, and I repeat, NOT take the place of the
initial learning curve, where control pressures and rates of application
are key to establishing the base from which all further training will
depend.
The sim has limited uses for the Navy just as for anyone else in the
flight training business.
It's also true that studies have indicated some use for the simulator as
training progresses, AFTER full acclimation to the use of flight
controls has been established in the actual airplane. It's important to
understand this if you will be pushing the simulator issue on the
positive side of the ledger. The Navy is interested naturally in any and
all cost effective training aids that release manpower and equipment to
better more efficient use. A careful study is always in progress to
establish when and where and to what extent additions like the simulator
would affect the efficiency of the training program.
But make no mistake about it; no desktop simulator now in common use
will take the place of your butt in the seat during those first few
absolutely critical hours in the flight training learning curve.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship