ELITE or ON TOP for IFR training?

Stubby wrote:

Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

In article ,
Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

I've got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME
was new forget verison). I basically can't run them on my new system.
However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they
both work fine on it.
Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they
can run under winXP/win2k. It just takes a lot of playing with the
settings.

I wonder why there is no third-party lesson package for MSFS? The Rod
Machado lessons are helpful, but limited in scope.

Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR
training accessory. Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in
MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth. It would follow a
logical sequence to step you through all the various types and
configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of
graphics in the flight analysis view. The package would come with all
required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form. The entire thing
could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be
done quite cheaply, say $30.

I know MSFS isn't the best flight model, but there are some big economic
advantages to using it. Everyone and their brother owns MSFS already, so
most folks would only have to buy the preconfigured flight package. The
developer would be free to concentrate on the lessons and documentation.
MSFS is relatively bug free, has extensive documentation and support, is
updated and upgraded every year, and interoperability with new versions of
Windows will never be an issue. There's a huge community of add-on planes
and panels out there, so it would be easy to match your mount. The
integrated ATC is well done.

Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd rather do that
in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff
and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn how to
interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't think the lower
flight model quality is an issue there. The integrated Garmin GPS is
another plus.

Anyone familiar with the MSFS SDK? How hard would this be?

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn't allow even
momentary errors. If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of
the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning. That
leads to boredom and little training. I have never made it through
flying "Plan A". Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn't know. It has never operated long enough for me to get
through more than the first few lessons. It's a piece of crap and
a waste of over $300 for the pair.

I've got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME
was new forget verison). I basically can't run them on my new system.
However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they
both work fine on it.
Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they
can run under winXP/win2k. It just takes a lot of playing with the
settings.

On 6/25/2005 8:26 AM, Ed H wrote the following:

Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR
training accessory. Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in
MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth. It would follow a
logical sequence to step you through all the various types and
configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of
graphics in the flight analysis view. The package would come with all
required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form. The entire thing
could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be
done quite cheaply, say $30.


This is exactly what IP Trainer does, except for the $30 part. At least they
don't charge extra for all the bugs that are included!


Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments.

Don't underestimate the value of learning to fly patterns ("Alpha pattern",
etc.) on a sim. It is cheaper and more difficult than in an airplane. If you can
do it well on the sim with no physical or audio feedback you will find it fairly
easy in an airplane. My instructor just skipped me over the pattern flying
after he saw that I could already do it easily. YMMV

Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want to use
a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd rather do that
in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff
and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn how to
interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't think the lower
flight model quality is an issue there.

You have it backwards actually. Doing it in the real airplane is
a LOT more expensive and you have a LOT more to deal with. Doing it
on the simulator, you can focus on only the basic attitude isntrument
flying and nothing else. Doing the situational awareness in the plane
is a waste. Just about anyone (well almost) can navigate from a point
to a point. Do you really want to be flying along an airway picking
out the cross-radials every 20 miles and spending $35 for each
intersection? Do that on a computer where you can jump from point
to point in a matter of seconds. In fact, online there are many
models that do this. When you get into the plane you want to
be proficient at all the very basic stuff and semi-proficient at
the more than basic stuff. The simulator is more difficult in some
ways but early on when you screw up more than other times, the simulator
makes it very convenient and far cheaper to restart. In the
airplane getting back into position to re-start a maneuver can cost
a lot of money quickly.

Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:


Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don't really want
to use a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments. I'd
rather do that in an airplane. What I want help with is learning all
the procedural stuff
and developing my situational awareness, so I'm not trying to learn
how to interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour. I don't
think the lower flight model quality is an issue there.


You have it backwards actually. Doing it in the real airplane is
a LOT more expensive and you have a LOT more to deal with. Doing it
on the simulator, you can focus on only the basic attitude isntrument
flying and nothing else. Doing the situational awareness in the plane
is a waste. Just about anyone (well almost) can navigate from a point
to a point. Do you really want to be flying along an airway picking
out the cross-radials every 20 miles and spending $35 for each
intersection? Do that on a computer where you can jump from point
to point in a matter of seconds. In fact, online there are many
models that do this. When you get into the plane you want to
be proficient at all the very basic stuff and semi-proficient at
the more than basic stuff. The simulator is more difficult in some
ways but early on when you screw up more than other times, the simulator
makes it very convenient and far cheaper to restart. In the
airplane getting back into position to re-start a maneuver can cost
a lot of money quickly.

The idea is that a simulator controls the number of decisions per minute
that you, the pilot, have to make. This allows effective learning. In
a real airplane just about anything can start happening at anytime,
complicating the learning.

IPT allows the student to crank up the weather effects when he/she is
ready. I like that but I believe IPT is still too demanind on things
like when you begin the roll-out from a turn.

The idea is that a simulator controls the number of decisions per minute
that you, the pilot, have to make. This allows effective learning. In
a real airplane just about anything can start happening at anytime,
complicating the learning.

exactly. Especially with ATC calling out traffic or an approach is
down for MX or the winds don't agree with the VOR approach you want
to do.

The other thing to keep in mind is when you fly IFR, you fly IFR.
You don't 'practice IFR.' Ok, you can do VFR practice approaches
but you still have to do them as ATC expects you to do them the
published way. The first time I went up with my CFII out of SQL,
our clearance was 'maintain VFR at 1100 or below.' I didn't have
the skills to do that, checklists, call departure, etc. and I busted
altitude by no less than 50 feet. ATC was on my ass immediately.
You 'do' and not 'practice' in the system. The simulator helps
that.

Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:

The other thing to keep in mind is when you fly IFR, you fly IFR.
You don't 'practice IFR.' Ok, you can do VFR practice approaches
but you still have to do them as ATC expects you to do them the
published way. The first time I went up with my CFII out of SQL,
our clearance was 'maintain VFR at 1100 or below.' I didn't have
the skills to do that, checklists, call departure, etc. and I busted
altitude by no less than 50 feet. ATC was on my ass immediately.
You 'do' and not 'practice' in the system. The simulator helps
that.

While this may have happened to you, I'd say that kind of experience is
exceptional. Sorry it happened to you.

Where I live, I can fly VFR with few altitude restrictions, but then I don't fly
out of SQL.

When flying VFR practice approaches I've never had ATC care whether or not they
were done "in the published way". VFR is VFR.

In 16 years and 1500+ hours of flying, I've never heard of anyone busted by ATC
for a 50 foot altitude deviation (well, I guess now I have).

Regardless, I agree a PC-based flight simulator can save you time and money on
IFR training.

Dave