Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

On Feb 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:05 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:



writes:
Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel?

Not that I can remember. However, that's not a bad idea; I'll have to try it
sometime.

In general, if there's an autopilot, I'll use it for a trip of any length, and
all the aircraft I like have autopilots.

And were you able
to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
assigned heading for the entire flight?

I can do both indefinitely, without any visual information, but I wouldn't fly
an entire flight that way unless it were extremely short. It takes a long
time to trim the aircraft out of phugoid excursions. If nothing more, I'll
use the autopilot to trim.

Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
nothing ever breaks.

If you can hold course and altitude in VFR, you can hold it in IFR, so if you
can fly at all, the exercise is not that important.

How about a simulated power loss followed by an
off-field landing.

In IMC? I congratulate you if you've managed that.

I've simulated single- and double-engine failures on quite a few occasions.
It's difficult but not impossible to deal with. The only really bad time is
on take-off, which, in some cases, doesn't really allow for much recovery.

Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
off. Where can you land?

I'm not sure why a power loss in the pattern would be specifically
challenging, as compared to a power loss in any other phase of flight besides
take-off and landing.

I've done engine failures after take-off, and I've done engine failures at
altitude.

Should these possibilities be considered?

Yes, especially in GA aircraft, with their rickety powerplants.

The simulator is used by the airlines almost exclusively to teach non-
standard procedures. From what I've read, the instructor can break
just about anything and everything in the panel, and the pilot is
expected to deal with it. How are they able to cope if they don't
practice.

That's the whole advantage to the simulator.

If my simulator was as sophisticated as the airlines, I wouldn't have
to practice non-standard procedures in the real airplane. But alas,
my personal fortune does not allow me access to such a simulator.
Therefore, the only way I can be proficient is to practice in a real
airplane.

A lot of things can be failed even in MSFS. And some aircraft can be damaged
by various things and then you must deal with the damage.

But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
practice.

But if you can fly VFR you _already know_ how to do that. It's no different
for IFR.

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

If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
congratulate you! I now understand why you think controlling an
aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.

It isn't that easy for me. I find it much harder, especially when
distracted by looking up and studying procedures, and radio work.
Maybe with enough practice it will also become second nature to me.

Steve


Folks,

This has been a real learning experience for me. I have been
following these newsgroups for awhile, but this was my first post. I
appreciate everyone's great advice, but I am through defending my
philosophy regarding instrument training to non-pilots. All pilots
(even student pilots, and especially CFII's) are welcome to critique
everything I write, and I will carefully evaluate what they have to
say and respond accordingly.

Thank you.

Steve