Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

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

wrote:


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.


FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. I have a very old
version of Elite (4.0?) and a CH serial yoke. I found it easiest to use
the autopilot to set the trim and to more or less avoid making pitch
changes with the yoke. There is a way to manufacture a much more
realistically trimmed yoke, but I haven't seen any that do it.

Ray Andraka wrote:
FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. ....

I don't find it difficult to trim at all even with wind shear and wind
gusts turned on. I do have two of the buttons on the top of the
joystick set for trim. I click in either direction gets it fine tuned.
Maybe it is your method of trimming? Normally in a real plane, you
hold the pitch so you have 0 on the VSI and then trim for zero force.
In MSFS, I do the same for more gross trimming and then end up flying by
trim for the fine tuning. This is obviously wrong technique for a real
plane but as long as I know the difference I don't find it necessarily
bad.

BTW, I found trimming correctly to be one of the most important
techniques learned in IFR (and VFR) flying with regards to being able to
fly the plane completely hands-free which lets you do all the
"paperwork" (charts, plates, setting avionics, etc.) much more easily.

Use MSFS for procedures and also to fine tune your scan and your 'gain'
(sensitivity) for doing approaches to perfection. I regularly fly CAT
II approaches partial panel and without the aid of a G430 (DTK vs. TRK).
Did this recently after a few beers. ;-) My friends thought it was
easy to do since the needles don't move at all. I wouldn't do this
for real but if schitt hits the fan, I know I did some pseudo-training
for this even if it doesn't count for currency. Next up is planning
(rate of descents) and doing approaches with an engine failure. I'll do
it on MSFS and then on my next (or sooner) BFR do it in the plane.


Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote:

FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. ....


I don't find it difficult to trim at all even with wind shear and wind
gusts turned on. I do have two of the buttons on the top of the
joystick set for trim. I click in either direction gets it fine tuned.
Maybe it is your method of trimming? Normally in a real plane, you
hold the pitch so you have 0 on the VSI and then trim for zero force. In
MSFS, I do the same for more gross trimming and then end up flying by
trim for the fine tuning. This is obviously wrong technique for a real
plane but as long as I know the difference I don't find it necessarily bad.

BTW, I found trimming correctly to be one of the most important
techniques learned in IFR (and VFR) flying with regards to being able to
fly the plane completely hands-free which lets you do all the
"paperwork" (charts, plates, setting avionics, etc.) much more easily.

Use MSFS for procedures and also to fine tune your scan and your 'gain'
(sensitivity) for doing approaches to perfection. I regularly fly CAT
II approaches partial panel and without the aid of a G430 (DTK vs. TRK).
Did this recently after a few beers. ;-) My friends thought it was
easy to do since the needles don't move at all. I wouldn't do this
for real but if schitt hits the fan, I know I did some pseudo-training
for this even if it doesn't count for currency. Next up is planning
(rate of descents) and doing approaches with an engine failure. I'll do
it on MSFS and then on my next (or sooner) BFR do it in the plane.


Gerald


To be fair, my Elite is a very old copy (ca 1994). IIRC, it runs on
DOS, not under windows. I stopped upgrading when I got my instrument
ticket because I found I wasn't really using it very often and the
upgrades I did do didn't add much for the money. The yoke is an old CH
products yoke that connects to an old PC game port (it is connected to
the AzureSoft interface box for Elite). I found that it was very
difficult to get it trimmed up using the trim buttons, partly because
there was no force feedback in the yoke, partly because the yoke did not
output the same pitch when the yoke got pushed in or pulled out and then
returned to the same position. WIth that in mind, the only way to
effectively trim it without spending an inordinate amount of time
trimming was to engage the altitude hold, let it trim it up and then
release the altitude hold. Basically, I found Elite (we're talking
early version again here) to be superb for procedures training and
developing your scan. The aircraft model seemed to be pretty good as
well, and I understand that has been improved drastically. I didn't
bother with rudder pedals, as I wasn't interested really in perfection
as far as the control inputs.

As far as the real plane goes, yeah, getting it trimmed properly is a
key item for reducing workload. I fly a Cherokee Six with electric trim.
It is very easy to trim for pitch, and once set it'll hold altitude
all day. Good enough that I only went for a single axis AP.

writes:

If you can fly that well on instruments with MSFS, then I
congratulate you!

Just a question of practice and/or logic.

I now understand why you think controlling an
aircraft by instruments is no different than in VMC.

You don't control an aircraft by instruments. You control an aircraft with
flight controls, such as the rudder and yoke. They work in exactly the same
way in both VMC and IMC.

Instruments provide you with information. They do not control the aircraft,
except on autopilot. And the autopilot works the same in both IMC and 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.

You're confusing situational awareness and the gathering of information about
it with the actual act of controlling the aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
snip

You're confusing situational awareness and the gathering of information about
it with the actual act of controlling the aircraft.


You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people based
on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
MSFS, but it is a different world - that of real flying in real airplanes.