Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

If you're near a college with an aviation department, see if there's
a way you can register for one of the sim courses. Local college here
has 12 Frasca, 4 ATP, an old DC10 that United donated over
10 years ago and 4 B1900 (don't know the vendor). Trust me, using a
Frasca is a couple orders of magnitude more effective than anything
MS sells. Plus, you get to count the hours towards the rating (which
you can't with MSFS).

Yes, it'll be mroe expensive but you won't pick up bad habits.

Anyone know how to turn on the DME and set the freq? The HELP in
MSFS is completely useless, AFAIK.

Blanche writes:

Anyone know how to turn on the DME and set the freq? The HELP in
MSFS is completely useless, AFAIK.

Which aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ray Andraka writes:

I have to disagree with you here. If you rely on autopilot all the
time, the day will come when the autopilot goes on strike in the soup.

If you don't use the autopilot, why have it? Everything fails sooner or
later; that doesn't mean that you shouldn't use anything.

Good luck keeping the shiny side up, staying ahead of the airplane, and
keeping your situational awareness if you aren't proficient at
hand-flying on instruments.

Or, more specifically, if you aren't proficient at reading instruments and
flying by hand.

There's no way to maintain that proficiency
without doing it. There are many pilots who've perished when George
went on strike in the soup and the pilot wasn't proficient with
hand-flying in the soup.

How much practice do you need? Are you just going to let the autopilot gather
dust because you're afraid it might fail someday?

I use the auto-pilot to reduce my workload when I am attending to other
tasks, and for that it is a gread load reducer.

And this is all the more true if you are IFR.

In a cross country
flight, there is a lot of time spent when you are not particularly busy,
and that is a good time to pull the plug on George and get some good old
hand flying time in.

That's a matter of personal preference.

Mxmanic, do you have an instrument rating? Your posts regarding user
fees make it sound to me like you don't even have a PPL.

Correct. I only fly in simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

writes:

The first part of every instrument
training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
airplane first and foremost.

Does that mean that you can fly VFR without the ability to control the
airplane?

Are you sure you are not confusing the need to know your situation with the
need to control the airplane? The latter is required for any type of flying;
the former is a task that is always required but is achieved differently in
IFR versus VFR.

I think both are important.

They are. But controlling the aircraft is something you _always_ do, in _any_
type of flying--IFR is no different from VFR in this respect, as all the same
techniques are used. Knowing your situation, on the other hand, requires
vastly different techniques in IFR versus VFR, and that's what you have to
learn for an instrument rating.

In fact if you can't control the
airplane, but you know everything else about your situational
awareness and what exact procedures to follow, you will die knowing
exactly where you are buried.

Yes, but that's just as true in VFR.

The PIC is always responsible for the safety on his/her ship, and of
course that includes monitoring the gauges to make sure the autopilot
is doing it's job. But what happens when you notice it isn't behaving
properly and you have to pull the breaker? That's why it's important
to have a backup plan.

I'd start by turning it off rather than pulling a breaker.

You need backup plans, but the fear of something failing shouldn't prevent you
from using it for normal flights.

Different skill sets are required to control the airplane precisely
using instrument reference alone, versus looking out the window.

No. Different skill sets are required for _situational awareness_ in
instrument flight. Controlling the airplane works in exactly the same way in
all types of flight. The rudder and yoke still work the same way, even in
IMC. The aircraft doesn't know or care whether you are in VMC or IMC.

I would not be ashamed to use the autopilot. I'm just talking about
training here. I would be ashamed to have earned my instrument rating
and have to be dependent on the autopilot to be safe. But I doubt
there are any CFII's out there that would let that happen.

Nobody says that you have to be dependent on an autopilot. But you can
certainly be accustomed to using it. Having an autopilot and not knowing how
to use it can be just as bad as depending on an autopilot and having it fail.

It's a 5 second (or so) flash(?) animation at http://www.reality-
xp.com/products/FLNT/index.htm. Very impressive.

Ah, I'm not able to view Flash, but if it convinces you, so much the better.
They are nice gauges.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I didn't know that scenery was still calculated even when not
visible. I will dial everything down.


Not all of it is, but some. E.g., the dynamic stuff is still calculated
in the background in order to account for when a dynamic item will get
close enough to be shown. Also, the cloud and scenery detail settings
have an impact on how detailed the "fog" is shown, how detailed
lighting effects and shadowing is. These all use a lot of CPU. And
finally, even if you only see fog, the program might still "think"
there is something vaguely visible through the muck - and that needs
calculating, too.

Oh, in case you're impressed by our resident non-expert - the above
information is straight from members of the MSFS programming group,
which I had the pleasure to talk to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
avionics!


Hmm. You won't learn how to use them, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Longworth,

I think the disciplines that I get from instrument flying have made
me a better VFR pilot. Of course, it is a different kind of flying
and I don't glue my eyes to the gauges in VFR but I think I am more in
tune, more sensitive to the plane speed, pitch etc. Although flying
a sim does not give you the physical feedback, it does help with
forming good flying habits and maintaining discipline.


I couldn't agree more to all aspects of that paragraph. Excellent
points!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Feb 15, 2:40 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
avionics!

Hmm. You won't learn how to use them, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


That was said with tongue in cheek (mostly). Since the money I spend
on flying is finite, I can fly the unsophisticated Warrior longer and
more often than the GPS equipped Dakota. I love the advantages
provided by the GPS and autopilot (The ADF and DME really aren't that
important any more with the 430 in the panel). I fully intend to
become proficient with everything in the panel before attempting to
fly the Dakota in real IMC.

Everything has a balance. I think it's important to be able to fly
just using the basic instrumentation, but not at the cost of ignorance
about 21st (and late 20th) century avionics. Like I mentioned in
another post, I'm hoping the flying club will spring for the WAAS
upgrade for the 430. Our local Class D field is scheduled to get the
new LNAV/VNAV LPV approaches next month. Sounds like fun!

On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, Jose wrote:
Plus I won't get spoiled using all those sophisticated
avionics!

Do practice GPS approaches, and all approaches with the Garmin. If you
are not familiar with the box, it -will- bite you.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I couldn't agree more. The Garmin isn't something you want to be
fumbling with in IMC.
Thanks