This should settle it!

Incorrect statement.


Do yourself a favor and don't discuss this with the village idiot. This
group has been through the process numerous times. He only pretends to
be interested in learning. You won't change his mind since his belief
that he is special is rooted in the belief that he "flies" when he
plays MSFS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

C J Campbell writes:

I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down other
instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a serious
authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for years.

Invite him to this newsgroup. He'd fit right in.

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

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" said:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

Settle what?

I disagree with him vehemently on several points, not least the
usefulness of view limiting devices.

I was mostly referring to his thoughts on how use of a simulator is
nothing like flying the real thing.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Oz Lander writes:

I was mostly referring to his thoughts on how use of a simulator is
nothing like flying the real thing.

So you notice the parts you agree with and ignore the parts you don't?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Incorrect statement. Learning to fly on instruments also entails
learning to firmly shut out the "seat of the pants" sensations. The
"seat of the pants" sensations are not there when flying a desktop
computer so its incorrect to say that instrument flying can be
"accurately simulated" on a desktop.

This only makes a difference if you are conditioned to interpret physical
sensations in certain ways.

Everyone I know is preconditioned from birth, by the earth's gravitational
field,
to accept what we commonly know as "up" to, in fact, be "up". We then learn
to interpret the direction of the "pull" of gravity to be in the direction
opposite of "up".
Anyone without vertigo or similar physical ailment or without external input
(suchs as
changes in velocity or direction, or riding in a spacecraft in ballistic
flight) should
be able to know his orientation with his eyes closed.

Again, as a non-pilot, I would think that the primary purpose of a
simulator, in the
context of IFR flying, would be to practice navigational routines or to
familiarize
yourself with a particular a/c type so that when presented with a real-life
instrument
flying situation in that a/c the procedures are not compromised by the
increased stress
of confusing sensory inputs.

But, by reading the responses by actual pilots and instructors, I get the
sense that
sims are more useful as instructional tools for IFR than I thought.

BS, Tony P.

" It might help to start with instrument flight and then continue with
visual
flight, instead of the other way around. Of course, that might make VFR
skills more difficult to acquire.


That should narrow down the flock of potential pilots. Just scare the hell
out of
them right outta the gate.

tp

"muff528" wrote in message
news:5xzUh.1813$xP.346@trnddc04...
...
Again, as a non-pilot, I would think that the primary purpose of a
simulator, in the
context of IFR flying, would be to practice navigational routines or to
familiarize
yourself with a particular a/c type so that when presented with a
real-life instrument
flying situation in that a/c the procedures are not compromised by the
increased stress
of confusing sensory inputs.

But, by reading the responses by actual pilots and instructors, I get the
sense that
sims are more useful as instructional tools for IFR than I thought.


Sims seem to be a quite useful as part of a training process if they are
accompanied with approptiate instruction. They also appear to be good for
"keeping a hand in it" if you already have some experience and training.
However, neither airplanes or sims are a good way to "learn yourself to fly
by trial and error" - while you are less likely to get killed with the sim,
you aren't really going get a good grounding in the essential basics that
you would pick up in just a few hours with an instructor (or even just
another competent pilot). One could keep at it and keep asking questions as
they come up, but without someone looking over your shoulder pointing out
when you go wrong, you don't know what questions you haven't thought of
asking - eh?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:39:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

I am convinced
that it is harder to fly an airplane with a view limiting device than it
is in actual instrument conditions.

There are certain aspects of instrument flying that are poorly simulated
by view-limiting devices. Two examples that come to mind are the low
approach (ie. looking for the airport rather than simply removing the
device in 10 miles visibility) and the lack of illusions such as a false
horizon from the clouds.

Just as simulation have a role, so do view limiting devices. But there's
nothing that's a *perfect* simulation for flying in IMC. That really
needs to be part of IFR training.

A friend "graduated" (passed his IFR checkride) with almost no actual
time (from one of those "get your license in 10 days" places). He was
sufficiently aware of this lack that his next step was to take one of
those "IMC flying tours" (which also sounded like a lot of fun {8^).

I worry about the IFR pilots that don't.

- Andrew

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

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.