On Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:04:37 AM UTC-7, Echo wrote:
Noel I'm curious to see what you think about Condor and simulation after becoming a real CFIG and teaching for a while. If I had a nickel for every time I had a student say "well in condor..." right before missing traffic underneath us, above us, birds circling, etc, I'd have a shiny new JS-1. I had to spend more time with a few students unlearning bad habits from computer flying that I think the computer flying actually saved. I fly a sim every 6 months for work in the most realistic simulators that exist, so I definitely agree they have their place, but I see things like condor as more of a way to explore cross country techniques. I agree it can be a good teaching tool and can serve as an example of basic aircraft mechanics, it will never be a satisfactory substitute for real stick time. I've heard all the arguments, including "you can learn to box the wake," okay, but you can't feel the nose being pulled, you can't feel the wake, and you can't get a REAL sight picture. To me, a better substitute for learning something like that is use a gopro video taken during a wake box maneuver, then go fly it.



Granted I learned on grass, dragging my tail, and looking out the window, and I teach accordingly...so take all this for what it's worth...









On Friday, March 8, 2013 4:44:34 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:54*pm, Evan Ludeman wrote:







I believe, given the proper resources, candidates for private and commerial pilot certificates with glider category ratings, could entirely manage their own flight-training development, and in large part, teach themselves to fly.







I believe they can and should be empowered to do that."







FWIW, I'm not an instructor and I'm not "invested" here. *Just simply wondering if I'm the only one that's a little queasy at this prospect.











I think the key words are "proper resources". That includes training



students how to use the simulator _properly_ and what its limitations



are. I don't think Scott is arguing that people should be completely



left to their own devices from the word "go". Rather, I think he's



positing that students don't need a flight instructor looking over



their shoulder every minute of practice.







For obvious reasons we can't let students go up "solo" in a real



glider to practice maneuvers before they're ready to handle a complete



flight on their own. But in a simulation environment, a student with



proper orientation and guidance can "woodshed" certain aspects of



their flying, without constant supervision. For example: If they can't



handle landings yet, then have them pause and reset the sim after they



get into the pattern and get to base or final leg. They can _still_



learn general aircraft control, proper use of trim, turn-coordination,



and other skills without having to worry about (or even know about)



the flare and landing.







Let me go "old school" with this: Did any of your flight instructors



ever teach you "chair flying"? Where you sit in a chair and close your



eyes and talk through (or pantomime) a maneuver or part of a flight?



This is an accepted part of flight training and has been used for



decades. And the same dangers of "simulation" apply to "chair flying":



You have to understand the limits, and be wary not to practice



improperly. But if you're on-guard for those issues, you can still



derive a great benefit from such practice.







I continue to believe that one of the biggest problems with glider



training is the fact that students may only get 1 "lesson" (or day of



flying) every 1-4 weeks. That leaves a lot of time in-between to



forget skills and to impede the encoding of muscle-memory responses



(kinesthetics, or the "feel" for the controls). Since daily tows are



not practical for most of us, simulator sessions to "fill in" around



real training can be of great benefit in speeding the learning curve



and dampening the impatience and frustrations that many students go



through.







--Noel



(CFIG in-training, and user of flight simulators for 27 of the 35



years I've been alive)

There seems to be an age where students want to tell the instructor how things work. I think maybe it's over 30 in males.

Experienced pilots seem to have more difficulty with PC sims. I think this is because they are accustomed to cues from the flying environment not present with the PC sim such as feel. Non-visual cues are interesting and useful but you can't fly with them exclusively. A simple PC sim forces a pilot rely on visual information from the screen since that's the only feedback available. However, that's not all bad. Many pilots have never learned to use those visual cues well which, I think, is why they have trouble with the PC sim.

Flying a PC sim well means a pilot understands most critical visual cues. A PC sim forces a pilot to imagine a 3D mental map of their unseen surroundings which is the foundation of "situational awareness".

I recall pausing the sim for an "experienced" pilot who had just flown a particularly sloppy pattern ending with a mis-aligned approach. I asked for a self-critique of the pattern and approach. "Uh, looks OK to me", was the response. I pressed him, "High, low, left, right?" He was still unable to see the glider was low and well to the right of glide path even though those cues were glaringly obvious. Eventually, we worked it out but I have no idea how this pilot learned to land a glider.

The teenagers I fly with understand they didn't learn to fly with a PC simulator no matter how much time they spent with it but they're hoping for some positive transfer. When a student performs a box-the-wake maneuver to PTS standards on the first try after a demonstration, it's clear they learned something from their simulator time.

Scanning for traffic starts with a pre-flight briefing and gets embedded in their consciousness when traffic they didn't see is pointed out. After that, they spot more traffic than I do since they're in the front seat with a better view. Maybe it's how it's presented.

My preferred method of using Condor is to "pre-fly" the lesson plan with the student where I point out the visual references the student is to use and the standard of performance expected. This "pre-fly" session always uncovers misunderstandings which would have taken time to work out in flight. Then, with full agreement on what we are going to do, we go fly the lesson plan. I can tell this lowers their anxiety level significantly. A simulator is only a tool to be used as effectively as possible by the instructor.