Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

On Feb 14, 5:29 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
I don't want to have my life dependent on a working autopilot, so I am
purposely avoiding it for now.

If you have a choice between a working autopilot and nothing, the working
autopilot is generally preferable.

Your life depends on an autopilot each time you board a commercial flight,
particularly if it's not a U.S. airline.

In IMC, you use all the resources you have in order to not get killed.
Eschewing the autopilot because you resent automation will put you at a
disadvantage if you are stuck in IMC and the autopilot can save you but you
can't remember how to use it.

I have nothing at all against autopilots; I think they are great. In
fact I love all technology which makes life easier and safer. Since I
won't be flying a commercial airline with redundant everything, I want
a way to mitigate the effects of single points of failure. Some non-
redundant items I can't do anything about (one fuel supply, one
engine, one pilot), but the ones I can I will. I have used the
autopilot flying VMC, and plan to become proficient flying with it in
IMC as well. Autopilots (at least the single axis one in the Dakota)
are just not that hard to use. I don't want to have to depend on
it. I think I will be a better and safer pilot if I can fly safely
and proficiently without all but the very basics.

My comments about the use of the autopilot are for my training, not
for actual use (especially when my family is on board).

I understand that the airplane doesn't
know if it's in the clouds, but I can sure tell. Being able to fly
without an autopilot, and using only the instruments as a reference is
a HUGE part of my training.

Perhaps I've not made myself clear. You use the instruments to assess your
situation. You use your autopilot to carry out your commands. The autopilot
is not a reference or a source of information; it is a work-saving device.
When you have lots of complex instruments to scan, it's very handy to have
something that will fly the aircraft for you based on your instructions.
There's no advantage to flying the plane by hand IFR if you have an autopilot.
And flying IFR is not the time to practice controlling the aircraft; if you
don't already know how to do that, trying to learn in IMC will lead to your
premature demise.

I have 250+ hours in VMC. I know how to control an aircraft. In VMC
you have this big horizon out the window available to judge your
attitude. In IMC, you just have the instruments. You have to learn
to ignore all physical sensations (no flying by the seat of your pants
here), and trust your instruments. The first part of every instrument
training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
airplane first and foremost. An autopilot will do this for you, but
that's no excuse for not knowing how to do it yourself. I don't want
to die from stupidity!


That said, once I have my rating I will take advantage of everything
(autopilot, handheld GPS) at my disposal. But I still intend to
practice partial panel, no autopilot, no GPS so I don't get too rusty.

Try to make the distinction between sources of information and control
mechanisms. IFR is all about getting the right information; it's not about
controlling the aircraft.

I think both are important. 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.

It sure is a lot more interesting when all you have are the "steam
gauges". But I agree with you that autopilots do make life easier
(and safer).

Autopilots and gauges are two different things. See above. Flying on
autopilot doesn't relieve you of the need to watch your instruments, it just
relieves you of the need to continually fly the airplane. Turning the
autopilot off doesn't make you any better at reading the instruments, either.

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.

When your autopilot breaks, there is also difficulty in actually doing
it.

If you can control the aircraft in VFR, you can control it in IFR. If you
can't control the aircraft, you belong on the ground.

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

If your autopilot is not broken, there's no shame in using it. That's what it
is there for.

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.


I went to Reality XP's website, and they had a side by side comparison
of the "stock" gauges, and their product. Amazing. One of the planes
I fly (and will be training in) has the Garmin 430, so I might be
downloading that as well. Thanks for the tip.

They were still photos, no? They are really impressive when they are actually
operating. Silky smooth action, behavior just like the real thing, and no
buttons or knobs that do not work.

It's a 5 second (or so) flash(?) animation at http://www.reality-
xp.com/products/FLNT/index.htm. Very impressive.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

wrote in message oups.com...


I have 250+ hours in VMC. I know how to control an aircraft. In VMC
you have this big horizon out the window available to judge your
attitude. In IMC, you just have the instruments. You have to learn
to ignore all physical sensations (no flying by the seat of your pants
here), and trust your instruments. The first part of every instrument
training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
airplane first and foremost. An autopilot will do this for you, but
that's no excuse for not knowing how to do it yourself. I don't want
to die from stupidity!


I learned to fly before private pilots received any instrument instruction.
Few of our airplanes had any gyros at all.
In those days, it was drilled into us that a non-instrument pilot,
trapped in IMC, had a life expectancy measured in minutes.
Sounds like you understand that.

On Feb 14, 8:14 pm, "John R. Copeland"
wrote:
wrote in ooglegroups.com...

I have 250+ hours in VMC. I know how to control an aircraft. In VMC
you have this big horizon out the window available to judge your
attitude. In IMC, you just have the instruments. You have to learn
to ignore all physical sensations (no flying by the seat of your pants
here), and trust your instruments. The first part of every instrument
training syllabus I've ever seen emphasizes the ability to control the
airplane first and foremost. An autopilot will do this for you, but
that's no excuse for not knowing how to do it yourself. I don't want
to die from stupidity!

I learned to fly before private pilots received any instrument instruction.
Few of our airplanes had any gyros at all.
In those days, it was drilled into us that a non-instrument pilot,
trapped in IMC, had a life expectancy measured in minutes.
Sounds like you understand that.

I've heard the audio tapes of hapless VFR pilots losing control in the
clouds. I don't want to contribute my name to that list!

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.

On Feb 15, 12:11 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
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 athttp://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 noticed you left out the part of my response where I told you this
was for training purposes only.

Just curious. In MSFS, have you ever tried to complete a flight in
IMC without an autopilot? Or with partial panel? And were you able
to stay within 100 ft of your target altitude , and 10 degrees of your
assigned heading for the entire flight?

Or do you feel this exercise is unimportant and pointless, since
nothing ever breaks. How about a simulated power loss followed by an
off-field landing. Or even a power loss in the pattern, or after take
off. Where can you land?

Should these possibilities be considered?

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.

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.

I agree with you that if you have an autopilot, you should use it.
But you should also know how to fly without it, and that takes
practice.

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.

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

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

On 02/15/07 15:11, wrote:
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.

Everyone comes around eventually ;-)

I wouldn't ignore *all* non-pilots, though...


Thank you.

Steve





--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Feb 15, 5:11 pm, wrote:
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


Thank you everyone for helping me. I wanted to post one last time to
document my results.

Lessons learned:

My computer, graphics card, and display settings were fine. The
default gauges on MSFS were the problem. They are inherently slow
(they only display 1 degree increments by design). Reality XP Flight
Line T-series gauges fixed this problem, but it is tedious to
install. Cost $19.95. I also loaded the GNS430 simulator from the
same site. Cost $29.95.

I applied silicon grease to my control yoke. It helped somewhat, but
it would be nice to have it always come to "rest" at the same spot.
It's hard to get it back to the same pitch position after a control
input. I usually can't and then I have to retrim. Stronger springs?
More or different kind of lubrication? Cost $7.95

I downloaded RealTrim. This is a unique way to trim on MSFS where you
hold the yoke at the correct pitch, then while pressing the assigned
"trim" key", you release the pressure on the yoke. Cool. Cost FREE!

The consensus seems to be that the most important benefit from MSFS
for instrument training is procedures training. It also can help with
your scan. I now completely agree. I will still try to get the yoke
to work better to make it more realistic, but MSFS can never
completely simulate the real feel (or experience) of flying a real
airplane!

I haven't sprung for the $250 required for the Elite simulator and
training manual. I still might in the future, but I'll try to get by
with MSFS for now. It sounds like the investment sure paid off for
Hai, so I may have to revisit this decision later.

The nearest aviation school is about 60 miles away (University of
Illinois), so I probably won't be using their fancy simulators too
often. It would still be fun to "audit" one of the classes. Thanks
Blanche!

Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond to my post. I didn't
mean for it to turn into a big online argument :-(

Steve