ELITE or ON TOP for IFR training?

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

One of my most memorable early lessons during my instrument training was
with a simulator. The instructor set it up, and said that the game plan was
that I was to fly to an intersection, intercept a radial to a VOR, and hold
at the VOR. I was "flying" along holding the CDI pretty good. Whoops a
little bank, level out. Still a bank, level out. OK "seems" to be coming
back now. PAUSE (nice that these simulators have that). "OK, What's wrong
with this picture?". Ummm, spiral dive? Sneaky instructor had failed the
vacuum system. It's a lesson I won't forget.
Now, if I use a simulator, and I know that whatever I plan on doing is
going to take say "twenty" minutes, I set a "random failure" to happen
between five and "sixty" minutes. That way I don't know if it's going to
happen or not.

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

no big deal. I learned and no one got hurt and no one had to
deviate.

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).

it was not the 50 feet, it was that you basically fly the pattern which
is right underneath the approach into SFO. The big iron passes at
around 1800 and maybe a mile or two east of the pattern. I was not
only 50 feet high but I was also climbing. Remember the transponder
encoder shows in hundreds of feet and is not as accurate as the
altimeter in the plane. Add it all up and it could have shown me at
150 feet high and still climbing.

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

definitely. It can also more realistically teach you about
failures without risking your life.

Gerald