Flight Simulator Software - Any Help or Just a Game?

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
68...
"Earl Grieda" wrote

The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim
training are better than students without Flight sim training.

But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.


The impression I get is that it is used right from the start. The
individual who pioneered it, and convinced the Navy of its value, had never
flown a plane but felt he needed some way to catch up with his peers who had
already flown.

"Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval Academy
graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into Naval
flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found himself at
a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program—many of his classmates
had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
pilots.

Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft’s
Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation of
the Beech T–34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added local
landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him with
situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the customized
simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.

His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near the top
of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer gaming
software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received above-average
flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator 98—modified
with a software shell, much like Lacy’s version—to all of its flight
students."

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

Bob Moore wrote
When I encounter a new student who has "learned to fly" using
a Flight Sim program, I usually find it necessary to cover the
instrument panel for the first 2-3 flights in order to teach
him to fly a real airplane. The US Navy (where I learned to fly)
by far preferred future Naval Aviators who had never set foot in
an airplane before.....no bad habits to deal with.

An inferior instructor always prefers students with no prior
experience or identical prior experience. That way, everyone can be
treated the same - the ultimate in cookie-cutter training. Even when
everyone comes in with the same (or no) experience, students vary in
the way they learn and would really benefit from individualized
training - but it's not really as obvious as when each student has a
different background.

A superior instructor always prefers students with as much experience
as possible. That experience can always be leveraged to make the
training faster and more indepth - provided, of course, the instructor
understands this prior experience and can effectively leverage it. If
he can't, he will complain about negative transfer and bad habits.

Playing flight sim is relevant experience, and can and should be
leveraged. Yes, it does tend to foster an overdependence on the
instruments in some cases, but this is easily addressed, and what
little increased time is spent in that area is more than offset by the
reduction in time required to teach instrument flight and navigation.
Of course if your training program is rigid and you can't take
advantage of those time savings, then it's all downside.

MSFS, while it has certain drawbacks, is really not a bad product.
The flight model is more realistic than what I've seen in the
FAA-approved trainers I've been exposed to. No, it doesn't do
anything at all for teaching the feel of the aircraft, but (and I know
I'm going to **** off some hardcore aerobatic types) that's a
relatively minor component in training a safe and proficient pilot.

The US Navy (and actually all branches of the US military) turn out
some really excellent pilots. Some people think that this must mean
the military really knows something about flight training. However,
it's important to remember that when you start with a bunch of
students who are all young, bright, and very motivated and focused,
and still wash a bunch of them out when they don't make the grade, you
will wind up with very proficient graduates even if the instructors
and instructional methods are worthless.

Nevertheless, I do not believe the instructional methods and
instructors employed by the military are worthless. At least they're
capable of improving once a student shows them the way. Downthread,
there is post referencing articles about the military use of MSFS for
student training.

Michael

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
.net...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
68...
"Earl Grieda" wrote

The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim
training are better than students without Flight sim training.

But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.


The impression I get is that it is used right from the start. The
individual who pioneered it, and convinced the Navy of its value, had
never
flown a plane but felt he needed some way to catch up with his peers
who had
already flown.

"Have you heard of Herb Lacy? In 1998, the ensign and U.S. Naval
Academy
graduate saw a lifelong dream fulfilled when he was accepted into
Naval
flight training. But Lacy, who had never flown an airplane, found
himself at
a disadvantage in the extremely competitive program—many of his
classmates
had previously received flight instruction, and some were certificated
pilots.

Lacy decided to level the playing field. He bought a copy of Microsoft’s
Flight Simulator 98 and used software tools to create a representation
of
the Beech T–34C Mentor in which he would learn to fly. Lacy even added
local
landmarks near Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, to help him
with
situational awareness. He spent more than 40 hours flying the
customized
simulator before climbing into a Mentor cockpit.

His efforts were so successful that not only did Lacy graduate near
the top
of his class, but the Navy investigated the idea of using computer
gaming
software for training. An experiment showed that when pilot trainees
practiced with Flight Simulator, 54 percent more received
above-average
flight scores. So the Navy decided to issue Flight Simulator
98—modified
with a software shell, much like Lacy’s version—to all of its flight
students."

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0004.html

The Navy is having the same issues with simulators as the rest of the
aviation community. The sim has some use as an "augmentation", and I
stress the term "augmentation" because the Navy realizes quite clearly
that desktop simulation can NOT, and I repeat, NOT take the place of the
initial learning curve, where control pressures and rates of application
are key to establishing the base from which all further training will
depend.
The sim has limited uses for the Navy just as for anyone else in the
flight training business.
It's also true that studies have indicated some use for the simulator as
training progresses, AFTER full acclimation to the use of flight
controls has been established in the actual airplane. It's important to
understand this if you will be pushing the simulator issue on the
positive side of the ledger. The Navy is interested naturally in any and
all cost effective training aids that release manpower and equipment to
better more efficient use. A careful study is always in progress to
establish when and where and to what extent additions like the simulator
would affect the efficiency of the training program.
But make no mistake about it; no desktop simulator now in common use
will take the place of your butt in the seat during those first few
absolutely critical hours in the flight training learning curve.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

For basic flight practice, I consider it useless and potentially even
training you for bad habits (e.g. using too much aileron vs rudder
when landing).

For instrument practice, it's excellent.

Bob Moore wrote in message . 168...
"Earl Grieda" wrote

The Navy appears to think that students with MS Flight Sim training
are better than students without Flight sim training.

But your post does not indicate in which phase of training the
advantage appeared. Pre-solo, Primary, Advanced, Basic Instrument,
Radio Instrument...or one of the other phases. All of the CFIs
who have posted here agree that there is value when used during
instrument training, but not during the "learn-to-fly" training.

The first story in the article he linked featured a student doing a
combined primary PPL-IA course at Embry-Riddle. Couple big issues to
watch he

1. This is a highly-structured course with sim work put in at very
specific places for very specific reasons, not just somebody poking
around with it on their own.

2. This course is really designed for ab-initio students whose "first
plane" will be a CRJ or similar. How many of these students will spend
a lot of time flying 172s etc. after they finish their training?

-cwk.

Although your motorcycle skills and experience would most certainly have
had a positive effect on accelerating the learning process in the
airplane, the actual effect of flying a desktop simulator would have
limited effect. It's true that the simulator would have taught you the
basic DIRECTION of movement for each control, and that would be a
positive, but for the actual purpose of flying an airplane, it's
PRESSURES and RATES that are the pertinent factors, NOT direction!



This has made me rethink a little. My time windsurfing surely helped in
this regard.

--
Dave A

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Z15%c.136659$Fg5.37892@attbi_s53...
So damaging can the use of the simulator be during this stage, that
it's use can actually retard the progress of a new student.

Another point of view:

I learned to fly ten years ago in 1994. I started "flying" sims in the
mid-80s, when they were little more than wire-frame depictions of
flight. (Anyone remember Atari STs?) By the time I could afford real
flight lessons, I had a zillion hours of sim time.

At least partially as a result, I took to flying immediately, and
soloed with just 6.4 hours in my logbook.

Quite frankly, I'd be willing to bet that my time riding motorcycles
was just as helpful in learning to fly (the physics of riding and
flying are nearly identical) -- but my instructor (who, by the way,
was an older gentleman and quite the technophobe. He believed that
computers were evil devices from Day One.) figured that all my sim
time really helped -- especially in the early stages of flight
instruction.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Control direction is learned early on and the good instructor gets away
from direction quickly and begins working you with pressures
immediately. Over concentration on control direction is one of the big
negatives that has to be addressed by instructors with students coming
out of a heavy desktop sim environment into the real world of actual
flying.
From the instructor's viewpoint, the negatives involved in acclimating a
student to the control pressure environment after having been exposed to
a directional environment only as it exists in the sim; FAR exceeds any
positives gained through the knowledge and use of a joystick in a
simulator.
The motorcycle experience however would have been a huge plus, as is any
(hand eye vs pressure of application equals coordination )background.
In your case, I'm fairly certain that the reason for your accelerated
progress wasn't your sim experience, but rather the motorcycle skills
coupled with your extreme positive motivation and ability to learn and
absorb quickly.

I'm sure it helped however, that from the tons of hours you spent flying
the simulator, you already knew which direction to move the controls.
Why if you had been one of my students, this valuable information would
have saved you a HUGE amount of learning time.....say about the first
fifteen seconds of your first dual hour when I explained control
direction to you. Then of course, I could begin the process of weaning
you off the expected sim reaction and into the real world of getting to
know those pesky control pressures. Who knows...with all that motorcycle
training and hand eye stuff going for us, we might even get into those
pressures without wasting all that much time; but that would of course
depend on how good I was at getting you to let go of all that sim time,
and how receptive you were to actually letting it go!! :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

"Dave" wrote in message
news:aNq%c.1509$sS4.87@trndny03...

Although your motorcycle skills and experience would most certainly
have
had a positive effect on accelerating the learning process in the
airplane, the actual effect of flying a desktop simulator would have
limited effect. It's true that the simulator would have taught you
the
basic DIRECTION of movement for each control, and that would be a
positive, but for the actual purpose of flying an airplane, it's
PRESSURES and RATES that are the pertinent factors, NOT direction!



This has made me rethink a little. My time windsurfing surely helped
in
this regard.

--
Dave A

I'm sure it did. Students coming into flight training with a good
background in sports; normal or better reasoning skills; and a high
positive motivation based on positive incentive are very easy to work
with and train.
Surprisingly enough, a background in aviation related subjects can be
either an asset or a liability depending on exactly what has been
absorbed. It's a complete toss up in this area until the instructor
discovers what can be used and what has to be changed. Some of the most
difficult students I ever had, brought prior aviation knowledge into the
learning curve with them that was flawed...but as I said, it can be an
asset as well. The problem is that prior aviation knowledge has to be
evaluated by the instructor and this takes time away that could have
been spent in more productive ways.
All things considered, I much preferred the student coming in cold in
the aviation knowledge department and heavy in the other attributes I
mentioned.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

(Michael) wrote in message . com...

If you ever use an FAA certified sim (and I've used a couple,
including one with visuals and motion) you will discover that while
the MSFS flight model is not quite right, it's a lot closer to right
than the FAA certified products. Sad but true.

And unsurprising. Regulation slows the pace of innovation, sometimes
with good reason, sometimes with good results, but often with neither.
In any case, instrument sims are mainly used to teach procedures, so
the flight model is not the most important thing, so long as it's
consistent.

I had an interesting experience with FS2004 right after I got it. I
loaded it up, cranked up all the realism fields, and plotted an IFR
flight from BED-LWM, which I'd done a dozen times in lessons. It's a
very short flight and you go from takeoff to approach almost
immediately so it's very easy to fall behind. Sure enough, the first
time I did it, I flew right through the localizer at LWM, just like I
did in the plane half the time! But the ATC wasn't smart enough to
vector me back around. Suppose that will wait for add-ons or the next
version...

Still, what FS04 could not create was the sense of urgency you have in
a real cockpit. For instance, turbulence really monkeyed with me early
on. I've been told a 6-degrees-of-freedom sim can actually replicate
many of the key kinesthetic phenomena quite well, and those seem to be
trickling down into GA training (c.f. Motus) albeit very slowly. Also,
while the ATC in FS04 is as pure software really, really impressive to
me, it's still far behind reality. Though if I had the same screen and
my CFII barking at me through a tube, I suppose you could capture much
of that.

Best,
-cwk.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:02:59 -0700, Jim Rosinski wrote:

For VFR flying Flight Sim 2004 is probably next to useless (or worse
than useless as some others have indicated) for helping with the real
thing. But for flying in the clouds it's nothing short of superb.

Nah, it can be useful for VFR too. FS2002 and 2004 actually started to
have reasonably good terrain in which you could recognize cities, roads,
powerlines and lakes. It was useful for me for my PPL.

I did not "just fool around" but I planned each flight, made the flight
plans, route planning, calculated wind correction, drew the route on the
map and so on. When I started the flight, I did it non-stop. If I forgot
the plotter to the kitchen table, or if the pencil broke but I had no
sharpener, I would not hit "pause" but just tried to deal with the
situation. Basically I tried to do "real flights" even though I was
sitting on the front of the computer. This, while it was just simulated
and might sound a bit silly, made me go through the routine of flying just
as much as if I was flying for real.

The "stick and rudder" stuff is just one part of flying,
and I agree a simulator can be a limited help in that area. It took me
about 60 landings to "get it" despite (or because of my sim
experience..

But there's a LOT more in aviation - situation awareness,
navigation, communicating with air traffic controllers, airspace, flight
planning etc. When all this could be practiced at home, it made me much
more relaxed on the real flight, since I had usually flown the same route
before on the simulator, I became familiar with the speed of the
aircraft and what it meant in terms of inches on the map, what altitudes
to use and what frequencies to use etc.. Also on the sim I had to rely on
the "big picture" of the landscape instead of individual local landmarks,
which I think is a good thing. So instead of recognizing a particular
church building I learned to look for things like "a lake with a town in
the west side" and "road crossing a river" etc.. Things you can find on a
map even though you dont know the area.

I also feel I am more confident with the use of VORs and such since the
simulator is a good practice device for those.

I encountered low ceiling (still VMC though) during my cross country solo
flight, and it surprised me since I was used to navigating on higher
altitude where visibility was excellent. The lower clouds restricted the
visibility to a much shorter distance in the horizon, and I got pushed
sideways by crosswind. I then missed a landmark and realized I was not
where I intended. In that situation I cross checked two VOR radials and
found myself on the map again. This was a routine thing I had
intentionally practiced on FS2002 several times before, and I am glad I
had. It helped to keep the workload lower on that situation and perhaps
even kept me calm instead of getting nervous in the cockpit.

So, yea, in my opinion it can be useful.

//Tuomas

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:32:20 -0700, C Kingsbury wrote:

Also,
while the ATC in FS04 is as pure software really, really impressive to
me, it's still far behind reality. Though if I had the same screen and
my CFII barking at me through a tube, I suppose you could capture much
of that.

One thing I used to polish my radio chatter was VATSIM (www.vatsim.net) -
while it is volunteer based, and again, no guarantees (learn things
from your books, not from there) - it was surprisingly good. Plus it was
great fun too.

But yeah, do not get too excited about the sim stuff - the learning for
real is the main thing and a simulator well used can complement that
nicely.

//Tuomas