If it can help to quell the semantic battle, here's what Richard Collins has to
say about the matter, in a Nov 2006 article on instrument instruction :

"When we were writing about learning to fly, it was suggested that a private
pilot course should be completed before starting training to get an idea of
what is coming. That is an equally good idea before you begin instrument
training. This is a far more complex endeavor and a pilot needs to go through
an instrument rating ground course to get a feel for that complexity. An
inexpensive PC airplane program, like Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane
(both available from Amazon), might also help in scoping out what is involved.
These are not flight training devices but they can be useful in looking at
procedures. An advance look at instrument training and flying might make it
seem like the greatest and most fun challenge you can find, or it might seem a
bit much. If the latter is the case, you might want to fly VFR for a while and
then revisit the instrument course".

To paraphrase, the programs are not completely without usefulness, but they are
not simulators. Of course, you could always write to FLYING to contest this
point of view. You could demand that he publish a retraction. Many pilots write
to him, but most with less than twenty thousand or so hours refrain from going
to head with someone so clearly more experienced (not to mention the fact that
he has the broadest readership base in all of aviation). He also has something
of a reputation for not suffering fools gently. Your call . . .








In article ,
says...


writes:

Look it up.

I already have. The FAA has jurisdiction over practically no one, with the
exception of pilots and other people who work in the aviation industry.

Thus, anyone can build and/or fly a flight simulator, with or without
recognition or approval from the FAA. Microsoft and X-Plane have already done
so, of course.