If all midair collisions were eliminated...

Wayne Paul writes:

In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

You're entitled to your opinion.

P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

On Feb 12, 9:34*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wayne Paul writes:
In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.. *

You're entitled to your opinion.

P.S. *You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and
emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring.

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message ...

I've flown the United 777 and DC-10 simulators in varietal weather and
emergencies. For the PC, I prefer Condor Soaring.

Frank,

We are in agreement on this one for sure!!!

Wayne

This is my last post on the subject.

I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system.

If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince you that you were experiencing high Gs. Without flight experience the G suite inflations merely caused discomfort.

The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress.

This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing a game with only minor aviation training relevance.

Respectfully,

Wayne, USN Retired.


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ...
Wayne Paul writes:

In my real life experiences the simulators were exact replicas of
the aircraft cockpit.

An exact replica would include pressure changes from altitude changes or
pressurization, and I rather doubt that the simulators you used had that
feature.

The point being, of course, that different simulators serve different
purposes. Each simulator is adapted to simulate whatever is relevant to its
purpose.

Some full-motion simulators have visuals that are worse than Microsoft Flight
Simulator, simply because visuals are not relevant to their purpose (which
often emphasizes instrument flight or procedures, not pilotage).

Its' purpose was to provide a platform for developing emergency procedures,
crew coordination, thus enhancing flight safety.

Then presumably it simulated aspects of the real aircraft relevant to these
purposes. How well did it simulate magnetic compass anomalies?

If "simmers' don't fly then a simulator is nothing more then an aviation
related toy with which they can play with while pretending to be pilots.

You're entitled to your opinion.

P.S. You use the term "aircraft" which in the U.S.A has a broader
definition then the term "airplane."

Yes, I know, thank you.

Wayne Paul writes:

I believe you grossly underestimate the capabilities of good cockpit
simulators. Even the air combat, carrier landing, etc simulators of
the 1970s far surpass the capabilities of a PC based system.

That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators
offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably
offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs
$34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a
vastly superior experience.

If you had flight experience the view from the cockpit flying one-on-one
or two-on-one with pilots in adjoining simulators could even convince
you that you were experiencing high Gs.

Certainly some simulators can simulate this (thanks especially to various
defects in human perception). I wouldn't want to simulate that, however; I
like placid, ordinary flight. I've never had any interest in aerobatics or
extreme maneuvers.

The same was true with a night carrier landing simulator. As the simulated
weather deteriorated and the fuel state became critical your heart beat
would increase, palms would sweat, etc. A non-pilot didn't relate the
flight conditions with death; therefore, did not experience the same
physiological symptoms; therefore, gaining little form the training other
then a bit of hand/eye coordination. In fact in many cases it actually
caused complacency instead of developing skill under stress.

That would depend on the "pilot." Profiting from simulation requires that one
take it seriously, whether it be on a desktop or in a multimillion-dollar
full-motion simulator. People who constantly dismiss simulation as unrealistic
tend not to profit from simulation.

Chess is just a very abstract simulation of combat, and yet some chess players
react strongly and physiologically to the evolution of a game.

This is why I consider a non-pilot in a simulator simply playing
a game with only minor aviation training relevance.

You're entitled to your opinion.

In message , Mxsmanic
writes
snip
That depends on what you're simulating, as I've said. And desktop simulators
offer unmatched value for the price. A $35 million simulator would probably
offer a better experience than a desktop simulator in most ways, but it costs
$34,999,960 more than the desktop simulator--so it had _better_ provide a
vastly superior experience.
Snip

Have you flown anything other than a PC? (being a passenger in a
commercial flight doesn't count)

--
Surfer!

Surfer! writes:

Have you flown anything other than a PC?

I have only piloted simulators.

... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...

Doesn't count for what?

On Feb 12, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Surfer! writes:
Have you flown anything other than a PC?

I have only piloted simulators.

... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...

Doesn't count for what?

One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
minutes.

Frank Whiteley writes:

One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
minutes.

How was his flying?

OK....

Last summer....

I took up a 17 yr old that had a LOT of time on MS Sim....

He took about 5 min to get the "feel " of the plane...

Then proceeded to NAIL turns to a heading, NO PROBLEM with turns up to
30 degrees bank, had researched the departures we use here, had
studied the chart, knew where the training areas were (we have 12) ,
KNEW where the CYR was, did a couple of stalls (HEY, the yoke shudders
JUST LIKE my "force feedback stick!")

Kept his head up, looking out, only checking the instruments (did NOT
expect that,- frankly, I was prepared for him to have his eyes inside
most of the time)

Did pretty good on steep turns too , best was 100 ft loss, 4th 360.

This was this kids FIRST time in a "real" aircraft. And I was
thoroughly impressed.....

Our flight school here as an extensive sim dept., (a whole building)
It is a vital part of the training.

You guys can beat up on MX all you want for what reasons you wish,
but many of his comments are reasonable and accurate.

Did you know you can get an instructors cert for ground school
instructing without ever crawling into an aircraft?

And that is where you are dudes, ON THE GROUND TYPING ON YOUR
COMPUTERS LIKE I AM NOW.

So you guys know "more" about flying than he does? OK... I have never
recall him ever contesting that. - But until he and you actually step
into a couple of like aircraft and have at it your superior prowness
as a pilot will never be demonstrated....

In this venue, (on the ground , on this forum etc.) his comments are
measured, ON TOPIC, and accurate a lot of the time. In comparison,
_some_ of the posts of others are looking , umm, well, maybe somewhat
silly..... ?

This has been great entertainment tho!

Some of these posts are a hoot!

Now before you turn the darts toward me, read this again..

0 insults.

0 personal attacks.

1 "slight" rant only..

Maybe an opinion?

Cheers!

Dave








On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:55:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Whiteley
wrote:

On Feb 12, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Surfer! writes:
Have you flown anything other than a PC?

I have only piloted simulators.

... being a passenger in a commercial flight doesn't count ...

Doesn't count for what?

One day, a young prat arrived at the gliderport for a real flight.
He'd logged 1500 hours on a flight simulator. The pilot couldn't tell
him anything, as he already knew it all about the instruments, stick
and rudder, and flight dynamics. Puked his guts out within ten
minutes.