Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

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.

On Feb 14, 11:24 pm, Blanche wrote:
Anyone know how to turn on the DME and set the freq? The HELP in
MSFS is completely useless, AFAIK.

The DME in the default 182 uses the frequency selected on either nav1
or nav2 (R1 or R2 toggle slide switch). On my simulator, it's always
on.

On Feb 14, 11:22 pm, Blanche wrote:
If you're near a college with an aviation department, see if there's
a way you can register for one of the sim courses. Local college here
has 12 Frasca, 4 ATP, an old DC10 that United donated over
10 years ago and 4 B1900 (don't know the vendor). Trust me, using a
Frasca is a couple orders of magnitude more effective than anything
MS sells. Plus, you get to count the hours towards the rating (which
you can't with MSFS).

Yes, it'll be mroe expensive but you won't pick up bad habits.

A few years ago I participated in a study at the University of
Illinois. They were seeing how long VFR pilots could last in IMC.
It wasn't a Frasca simulator (I don't remember what kind it was), but
the outside view was displayed by 3 projection screens.

Somehow I managed to live :-)

I didn't know that these simulators were open to the public. Do you
have to enroll in a class in order to use them?

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

How would you know? You happen to be correct in the staqtement below,
but the generalization you made prior was silly. Visual cues are
different in IMC and VFR.


The manipulation of controls required to fly the plane is identical for both
IFR and VFR.

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

Tim writes:

How would you know?

It's so self-evident that I'm surprised you ask the question.

Why would the controls of an airplane behave _differently_ just because of
changing visibility outside the cockpit? It's the same atmosphere, the same
control surfaces, the same airframe, the same powerplants ... obviously they
will operate exactly the same in both VMC and IMC. One need not be a genius
to figure this out, and certainly one need not be a pilot (although it appears
that some pilots _haven't_ figured it out).

You happen to be correct in the staqtement below,
but the generalization you made prior was silly. Visual cues are
different in IMC and VFR.

There are no visual cues in IMC.

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

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.