Condor

Noel I'm curious to see what you think about Condor and simulation after becoming a real CFIG and teaching for a while. If I had a nickel for every time I had a student say "well in condor..." right before missing traffic underneath us, above us, birds circling, etc, I'd have a shiny new JS-1. I had to spend more time with a few students unlearning bad habits from computer flying that I think the computer flying actually saved. I fly a sim every 6 months for work in the most realistic simulators that exist, so I definitely agree they have their place, but I see things like condor as more of a way to explore cross country techniques. I agree it can be a good teaching tool and can serve as an example of basic aircraft mechanics, it will never be a satisfactory substitute for real stick time. I've heard all the arguments, including "you can learn to box the wake," okay, but you can't feel the nose being pulled, you can't feel the wake, and you can't get a REAL sight picture. To me, a better substitute for learning something like that is use a gopro video taken during a wake box maneuver, then go fly it.

Granted I learned on grass, dragging my tail, and looking out the window, and I teach accordingly...so take all this for what it's worth...




On Friday, March 8, 2013 4:44:34 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:54*pm, Evan Ludeman wrote:



I believe, given the proper resources, candidates for private and commerial pilot certificates with glider category ratings, could entirely manage their own flight-training development, and in large part, teach themselves to fly.



I believe they can and should be empowered to do that."



FWIW, I'm not an instructor and I'm not "invested" here. *Just simply wondering if I'm the only one that's a little queasy at this prospect.





I think the key words are "proper resources". That includes training

students how to use the simulator _properly_ and what its limitations

are. I don't think Scott is arguing that people should be completely

left to their own devices from the word "go". Rather, I think he's

positing that students don't need a flight instructor looking over

their shoulder every minute of practice.



For obvious reasons we can't let students go up "solo" in a real

glider to practice maneuvers before they're ready to handle a complete

flight on their own. But in a simulation environment, a student with

proper orientation and guidance can "woodshed" certain aspects of

their flying, without constant supervision. For example: If they can't

handle landings yet, then have them pause and reset the sim after they

get into the pattern and get to base or final leg. They can _still_

learn general aircraft control, proper use of trim, turn-coordination,

and other skills without having to worry about (or even know about)

the flare and landing.



Let me go "old school" with this: Did any of your flight instructors

ever teach you "chair flying"? Where you sit in a chair and close your

eyes and talk through (or pantomime) a maneuver or part of a flight?

This is an accepted part of flight training and has been used for

decades. And the same dangers of "simulation" apply to "chair flying":

You have to understand the limits, and be wary not to practice

improperly. But if you're on-guard for those issues, you can still

derive a great benefit from such practice.



I continue to believe that one of the biggest problems with glider

training is the fact that students may only get 1 "lesson" (or day of

flying) every 1-4 weeks. That leaves a lot of time in-between to

forget skills and to impede the encoding of muscle-memory responses

(kinesthetics, or the "feel" for the controls). Since daily tows are

not practical for most of us, simulator sessions to "fill in" around

real training can be of great benefit in speeding the learning curve

and dampening the impatience and frustrations that many students go

through.



--Noel

(CFIG in-training, and user of flight simulators for 27 of the 35

years I've been alive)