MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .

Some of us have a lot more sim experience than anyone whose sim
experience began with the use of personal computers. And, we, too have
told you that MSFS isn't all that correct in its representation of
flight.

Okay. I'm IFR rated and on occasion when I can't fly, I take my approach
plates and shoot them in FS2004 in the Mooney or C-172.

It allows me to remember to set and ident freqs, follow the instruments,
time the approach (I use my kneeboard and timer), plan the course with an
E6B and fly it with a sectional. Teaches reliance on the instruments
(you can simulate instrument failures), reinforces use of checklists such
as GUMPS and procedures for radio navigation as well as remain sharp on
concepts such as reverse sensing and maintaing course headings.

My flying experience began in high school on the first MS Flight
Simulator. It helped me through groundschool and my private because I was
already familiar with navigating using one or two VORs and quickly
interpreting and responding to instruments.

I highly recommend it. It won't make you, say, IFR current, but it'll
sure polish your edge for much less than it costs to shoot practice
approaches each month.

I guess that's why they have flight simlators.

-c

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

There is no doubt that MSFS is great for use as you describe but it doesn't
make anyone an aviation expert as Anthony thinks it does.

Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

Ahem -- not THIS thread. I haven't been reading MX's stuff much,
lately, so if this thread seem to be echoing his thoughts, it's purely
coincidence.

As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.

I'll be glad to let you fly it for an hour or three, absolutely free,
if you ever get in my neighborhood. (Just don't show up on Tuesday
night -- Movie Night -- or you might have to stand in line... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the surround-sound system -- with the
subwoofer firmly attached to the bottom of the Kiwi's metal frame.

I've flown a Lockheed Constellation, and I'm here to tell you that the
Connie sim absolutely NAILS the sound of those big four radial
engines...and the vibration you get through your keister in-flight...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Gatt this thread and many others lately are here because of posts written
by
an idiot named Anthony aka msxmaniac who not only has never flown and
aircraft and has no desire to, thinks that most of us that do fly don't
know
what the hell we are talking about because our real world experience
doesn't
jive with his playing of MSFS.

Ahem -- not THIS thread. I haven't been reading MX's stuff much,
lately, so if this thread seem to be echoing his thoughts, it's purely
coincidence.

As a pilot with over 1600 hours in the logbook, over the last 12 years,
I think I'm qualified to state that the Kiwi reproduces flight in every
way possible, short of full motion. Until you take a few turns around
the patch in the Kiwi, I don't think you can quite appreciate the level
of realism this thing can produce. With the real world projected in
full scale, and the panel reproduced in actual scale size, real flight
controls, and a lightning-fast computer, it's quite amazing.

I'll be glad to let you fly it for an hour or three, absolutely free,
if you ever get in my neighborhood. (Just don't show up on Tuesday
night -- Movie Night -- or you might have to stand in line... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Jay I will of course take you up on that... BUT you are letting the big
projection screen and chair fool you into believing the simulation. All that
screen and controls changes nothing in the software itself and that is where
the difference is.

Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your son to be trained
in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?


Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than the
non-sim student.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF

The point is the sim trained student will probably
solo sooner and fly better than the
non-sim student.

Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?

There aren't a lot of bad habits you can learn in a sim, depending on
the sim. On a PC simulator, it's more what you don't learn than what
you learn incorrectly. Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
movement, and not much in the way of visibility. By a strange
coincidence, those are the two differences that many pilots here claim
are more important than anything else, which is manifestly untrue.

If you learn in a sim where your primary source of information is
instruments, you'll tend to develop a dependence on instruments. If
you learn in a real plane that moves, you'll tend to develop a
dependence on sensations. I don't see how the latter is any better
than the former, particularly given that sensations are so unreliable.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sitting in front of a PC, you have no
movement, and not much in the way of visibility.

Not true as far as the visibility is concerned. If you fly using MSFS's
virtual cockpits, then you have full eye movement around the inside and
out all the windows. I can even move up and down, left and right in the
seat. There's even IR head-tracking software that let's you look around
the cockpit by moving your head.

Here it is in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtkPR0idY

Randy

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
The point is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly
better than the non-sim student.

Will they have sim-bad habits to unlearn?

Jose

Jose, et al...

As a sim user for many, many years and now a PP-ASEL for the last two years,
I can tell you that yes, there are sim induced bad habits to be broken when
you go fly for real.

Probably the most egregious is panel fixation and not flying "head up."
It took several raps to the back of the head with a rolled up sectional to
get me to quit looking inside and learn to fly by reference to the view
outside. The interesting thing is that now when I spend any time with MSFS,
I find myself really frustrated at how lacking FS is when it comes to being
able to see "outside."

Another one that I had to unlearn was a casual disregard for systems status.
One just doesn't take into consideration things like oil temp/pressure, fuel
flow, suction, etc when one is in front of a computer screen.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
Ask your self this. Would you if it were legal allow your
son to be trained in nothing but the Kiwi and then solo?


Who has ever advocated flying solo after only sim training? The military
makes extensive use of simulators and even they do not do that. The point
is the sim trained student will probably solo sooner and fly better than
the
non-sim student.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html?PF


Hi Tom;

Reference;
"PCATDs?which, as far as Hampton is concerned, include both FAA-certified
PCATDs and off-the-shelf products like Microsoft Flight Simulator?are
restricted to teaching cognitive activities such as holding patterns and
approach procedures, where they can provide practical experience, practice,
and reinforcement. The university relied heavily on PCATDs during the first
private/instrument class, and experienced some negative learning. For
example, the computer?s performance didn?t always match that of the actual
aircraft, especially during slow flight and stalls. Also, if the monitor
isn?t properly sized and positioned, it can lead to poor scanning habits."


There is a key paragraph in this report that hints toward a most important
aspect in the use of desktop simulators in flight training; that being the
fact that they can not at this point in time duplicate the actual control
pressures required in the real airplane. The actual physical cues involved
in flying a specific actual aircraft are considered as critical factors for
the pre-solo student and must be experienced. The input from the desk top
simulator of familiarization with control DIRECTION is fine and should be
considered a training asset up to a point. That point is when the beginning
student must start the process of learning control PRESSURES.

Although there is reason to believe that this technology may be forthcoming
down the line, it is still the opinion of many QUALIFIED instructors in the
training community (myself included) that because of this single factor
involving the familiarization with control PRESSURES in the aircraft being
used for the instruction, the use of desk tops between the period spanning
the first hour of dual through the first solo should be discouraged.

The periods both before and after this period is where the desktops can be
quite useful and complimentary to the training environment.

Addendum; if Mxmanic underposts this reply, please excuse my not dealing
with it directly. If you or anyone else on the forum would like to discuss
this issue with me, please post freely and I'll be most happy to answer.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
Flight Instructor Retired
[MVP] For Microsoft Flight Simulator