If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
muff528 wrote:
Now, I'm not a pilot (real or imagined) but I'm surprised that ANY simulator time is credited toward the actual "40 hours required for the instrument rating". I would think that the simulator would be a good tool to acclimate the student to the environment prior to making the requisite 40 hours of actual flight time but not to replace flying time. (Is simulator time credited hour-for-hour?) Flight Simulator time (or more likely Flight Training Device time, since most pilots don't have the opportunity to use a simulator) can only be logged when it is conducted by an authorized instructor. To that end, the instructor should know how to properly use the simulator. By that I mean he shouldn't just spend an hour with the student flying an enroute course in IMC. It should be used to simulate conditions that are dangerous to practice in a real aircraft. Things like teaching an ILS to minimums in actually IMC or teaching how to fly a missed approach with weather below minimums. These types of activities are much safer taught simulated (either FTD/simulator or under the hood). A simulator is more realistic (oddly enough) than flying under the hood. At least as far as practicing to minimums. Even with the best hood, you get visual cues out of your peripheral vision. The other very useful part of using a simulator for instrument training is practicing partial panel work. In a real airplane, the instructor reaches over and puts a cover on your attitude indicator and directional gyro and says you lost your vacuum pump and the back up isn't working. OK, now you fly your approach with out them. No big deal. In a simulator, your instructor silently fails the vacuum system and you have to figure it out. The hardest part about flying partial panel isn't the actual flying, but recognizing that you have in fact lost an instrument (or two). Once you know, the rest is easy (by comparison). Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not games like MS Flight Simulator. My opinion is that they can serve a very real and valuable purpose in instrument training. I wouldn't recommend them for primary or commercial training, but for the limited scope I've mentioned here, they are excellent tools. I would agree with the original article, however, that their overuse is a bad thing. There are some that make more use of them than I feel is beneficial. Just because the regulations allow it doesn't make it a good thing. -m -- ## Mark T. Dame ## CP-ASEL, AGI ## insert tail number here ## KHAO, KISZ "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another which states that this has already happened." -- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Mark T. Dame writes:
Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not games like MS Flight Simulator. You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Mark T. Dame writes: Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not games like MS Flight Simulator. You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs. How would you know dip****, you're not even a pilot. Actually a simmer with your underestimations of actually flight is a 100 times more dangerous. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Maxwell writes:
How would you know dip****, you're not even a pilot. Because I recognize the attitude. Actually a simmer with your underestimations of actually flight is a 100 times more dangerous. I have a good attitude, and I'm cautious. I'd be quite a safe pilot in a real aircraft, perhaps so safe that I'd irritate instructors. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Mxsmanic,
It's a bad attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs. You know, you should really worry about your attitudes first. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Thomas Borchert writes:
You know, you should really worry about your attitudes first. My attitude won't get me killed. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Mxsmanic wrote:
Mark T. Dame writes: Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not games like MS Flight Simulator. You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs. Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training. By that logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've played Grand Turismo... Or maybe I can be an astronaut because I used to be really good at Lunar Lander. They're both based on real physics and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good training devices... That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane. (Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.) -m -- ## Mark T. Dame ## CP-ASEL, AGI ## insert tail number here ## KHAO, KISZ "Individually twisted." -- My pretzel box |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Mark T. Dame writes:
Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training. No, you show some danger signs because you are quick to vigorously dismiss what you don't understand or don't like. By that logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've played Grand Turismo... Have you tried it? They're both based on real physics and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good training devices... They are far better than many early simulators costing much more, with much less criticism directed at them. That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane. As pathologically cautious as I sometimes tend to be, I don't think I'd be any danger to anyone flying a real plane. The only risk would be that I might incur the wrath of all the macho men flying around me, although encounters with terrain and each other might eventually filter them out. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
Mark T. Dame wrote:
(Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.) *Smack!* Now, grasshoppah, you learn value of "K" key. Press when topic go off deep end, and all problems solved. Thunderbird good for that. TheSmokingGnu |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
This should settle it!
On 2007-04-16 08:43:33 -0700, "Mark T. Dame" said:
Mxsmanic wrote: Mark T. Dame writes: Note, however, we are talking about real simulators and flight training devices (or at worst PCATDs, which have even more restrictions), not games like MS Flight Simulator. You do yourself a disservice by underestimating "games" like MSFS. It's a bad attitude for a pilot to have--one of the danger signs. Interesting. I'm a dangerous pilot because I don't think Microsoft Flight Simulator has much value in real world pilot training. By that logic, I should be able to race a Formula One race car because I've played Grand Turismo... Or maybe I can be an astronaut because I used to be really good at Lunar Lander. They're both based on real physics and real vehicle performance just like MSFS, so they must be good training devices... That fact is that your insistence that MSFS is a more valuable training aid than it really is makes me glad that you aren't flying a real plane. (Dammit, I'm feeding the trolls again. Somebody smack me.) -m SMACK! (Still, I want to see where AC 60-22 - Aeronautical Decision Making - even mentions Microsoft Flight Simulator, let alone the part where it says that refusing to use it is one of the hazardous attitudes.) -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Settle a bet: Mach speeds | tscottme | Military Aviation | 27 | June 8th 04 10:16 AM |