Realistic Instrument Training using MSFS 2004

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Andraka writes:

The controls don't behave differently (unless the airframe is iced up),
but you are neglecting the fact that the pilot is part of the control
loop.

No, the pilot is independent of both the controls and the instruments. He is
the interface between the two domains, not part of them.

That phrase is a very original way of restating that "the pilot is
part of the control loop". Ray did not say that the pilot is "part of
the controls", or "part of the instruments" ...

Time to increase the population of my killfile...

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

Tim wrote:
You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people based
on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
MSFS....

Actually, he can't. He's stated several times that he has
trouble controlling the A/C in MSFS and needs to use the
autopilot.

F--

Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
depending on where you live. Then report your experience. You might
even find that people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say.

Since you love simulators so much, find a school or instructor with a
frasca simulator and spend an hour in it. It is loggable sim time - as
opposed to msfs.

As others have pointed out - this is res.aviation.ifr - not
rec.simulations.ifr or other similar game newsgroups.

I own a plane. I fly - I fly IFR. I own MSFS and I have used it. I
actually have experience about stuff you pretend to know about. Your
semantics and pedantry are amusing, but still have no basis in reality.



Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:


You're confusing reality with a game.


I'm not talking about a game.


And worse, lecturing people based on your small world.


The more I read from some pilots here, the more I recognize how clueless some
of them really are.


I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus out of
MSFS, but it is a different world - that of real flying
in real airplanes.


I'm less and less convinced of this.

TxSrv wrote:
Tim wrote:

You're confusing reality with a game. And worse, lecturing people
based on your small world. I have no doubt you can fly the bejesus
out of MSFS....


Actually, he can't. He's stated several times that he has trouble
controlling the A/C in MSFS and needs to use the autopilot.

F--


I was being polite.

Tim,

Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
depending on where you live.


We're moving in circles here. If you google the group a little, you'll
find out we've been through these suggestions. MX is deadly afraid of
flying, but similarly afraid to admit it. He'll never fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tim writes:

Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
depending on where you live.

I was considering that, but then it occurred to me that the instructor might
be like many people in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want to be stuck
thousands of feet in the air with someone like that.

Then report your experience. You might
even find that people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say.

Why? The experience wouldn't really change anything.

In reality, they would find some _other_ initiation ritual to separate
themselves from myself.

Since you love simulators so much, find a school or instructor with a
frasca simulator and spend an hour in it. It is loggable sim time - as
opposed to msfs.

I'd want a full-motion simulator, and apparently those are rare for general
aviation. If it doesn't move, I may as well stick with MSFS; just adding a
plastic imitation of a cockpit doesn't change much.

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

I was mostly curious whether the pitch sensitivity and/or slipperiness
of
the smaller sims was happenstance or by design.

Part of it may be due to the limited travel of the control yoke in a sim.

Jose
--
Thanks for pointing that out.

I have not been using a sim, but have seen the equipement and should have
noticed that the travel is about half of what I had in real basic trainers.

As Sherlock Holmes might have phrased it, I saw but did not observe.

Peter

OK, I finally came to the conclusion that you are an idiot. Thanks for
the wonderful discussion. Have fun playing with your games.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:


Here's an idea - save up some money - and take an hour of dual
instruction in a real plane - should only be about $100 to $175
depending on where you live.


I was considering that, but then it occurred to me that the instructor might
be like many people in this newsgroup, and I wouldn't want to be stuck
thousands of feet in the air with someone like that.


Then report your experience. You might
even find that people will be more inclined to hear what you have to say.


Why? The experience wouldn't really change anything.

In reality, they would find some _other_ initiation ritual to separate
themselves from myself.


Since you love simulators so much, find a school or instructor with a
frasca simulator and spend an hour in it. It is loggable sim time - as
opposed to msfs.


I'd want a full-motion simulator, and apparently those are rare for general
aviation. If it doesn't move, I may as well stick with MSFS; just adding a
plastic imitation of a cockpit doesn't change much.

On Feb 15, 5:11 pm, 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.

Thank you.

Steve


Thank you everyone for helping me. I wanted to post one last time to
document my results.

Lessons learned:

My computer, graphics card, and display settings were fine. The
default gauges on MSFS were the problem. They are inherently slow
(they only display 1 degree increments by design). Reality XP Flight
Line T-series gauges fixed this problem, but it is tedious to
install. Cost $19.95. I also loaded the GNS430 simulator from the
same site. Cost $29.95.

I applied silicon grease to my control yoke. It helped somewhat, but
it would be nice to have it always come to "rest" at the same spot.
It's hard to get it back to the same pitch position after a control
input. I usually can't and then I have to retrim. Stronger springs?
More or different kind of lubrication? Cost $7.95

I downloaded RealTrim. This is a unique way to trim on MSFS where you
hold the yoke at the correct pitch, then while pressing the assigned
"trim" key", you release the pressure on the yoke. Cool. Cost FREE!

The consensus seems to be that the most important benefit from MSFS
for instrument training is procedures training. It also can help with
your scan. I now completely agree. I will still try to get the yoke
to work better to make it more realistic, but MSFS can never
completely simulate the real feel (or experience) of flying a real
airplane!

I haven't sprung for the $250 required for the Elite simulator and
training manual. I still might in the future, but I'll try to get by
with MSFS for now. It sounds like the investment sure paid off for
Hai, so I may have to revisit this decision later.

The nearest aviation school is about 60 miles away (University of
Illinois), so I probably won't be using their fancy simulators too
often. It would still be fun to "audit" one of the classes. Thanks
Blanche!

Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond to my post. I didn't
mean for it to turn into a big online argument :-(

Steve

wrote:


I haven't sprung for the $250 required for the Elite simulator and
training manual. I still might in the future, but I'll try to get by
with MSFS for now. It sounds like the investment sure paid off for
Hai, so I may have to revisit this decision later.


FWIW, the Elite simulator suffers the same issues with the yoke inputs
not feeling realistic and being difficult to trim. I have a very old
version of Elite (4.0?) and a CH serial yoke. I found it easiest to use
the autopilot to set the trim and to more or less avoid making pitch
changes with the yoke. There is a way to manufacture a much more
realistically trimmed yoke, but I haven't seen any that do it.