I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote:
Nomen Nescio writes:

Who are all these "experts" that you keep mentioning?

The ones who write aviation books for the FAA, NASA, etc.

Good instructors don't teach as one person basing what they teach on
their opinion alone. Good instructors use good material written by
experts in their field. I know many who have themselves written for
their field.
No instructor worth the title shuns the collective knowledge of those
who came before him/her.
Good instructors also know where simulation can be useful and where it
should be avoided.
All good instruction is fluid and makes use of all pertinent and useful
tools.

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 14, 9:23 pm, Clark wrote:
Learn to fly and then come back and tell everyone how much you really knew
before actually flying the plane.

Alternatively: talk to instructors about the students who "studied" on a
simulator before learning to fly. It's rather entertaining to hear about
folks who can tune a radio and fly the airways but they can't reliably find a
runway much less land on it. Hell, on my practical test the only VOR work I
had to do was give a simple heading to an airport. The DPE was much more
concerned about the practical operation of the aircraft rather than simple
radio nav skills.

In other words, studying a subject academically is much different than
actually participating in that subject physically and mentally.

Certainly you will agree that, all things being equal, it is good to
learn as much as one can on the ground before getting into the cockpit?
There is no substitute for manual practice, but manual practice is
going to happen anyway. Why wait until getting into the cockpit
before learning things that can be learned on the ground?

And why do all these flight schols have simulators?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning.
Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
and lab.

As for the simulators they are used almost exclusively for IFR training.

Clark wrote:

We had the same instructor and flew about the same number of hours
per week. My instructor mentioned that the other guy spent a long time
learning to look out the window rather than at the gauges.


He probably had trouble getting used to "feeling" slips, skids and
G-force difference as well. Also the difference between control
movement and control pressure.

The payoff for him will come around during Instrument training, if he
chooses to do that. I got a lot of mileage out of MSFS during my IFR
training, and still shoot approaches in it. In fact, in this month's
AOPA Pilot magazine, Rod Machado mentions Flight Simulator as a tool to
stay proficient during extended periods away from the cockpit. Of
course, that assumes the reader is already a pilot.

-c

On May 15, 9:40*pm, Clark wrote:
First off, don't even pretend to know what I will agree with. If you can't
do that then there is absolutely no point at all in responding. Got it?

Second, don't pretend to know what you need learn before getting in an
airplane. As I said before, talk to flight instructors and trust their
guidance in the matter. The instructors I know say that simulation before
flying is a detriment. Why would you assume to know better?????

I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.

Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 16, 8:36*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 14, 9:23 pm, Clark wrote:
Learn to fly and then come back and tell everyone how much you really knew
before actually flying the plane.

Alternatively: talk to instructors about the students who "studied" on a
simulator before learning to fly. It's rather entertaining to hear about
folks who can tune a radio and fly the airways but they can't reliably find a
runway much less land on it. Hell, on my practical test the only VOR work I
had to do was give a simple heading to an airport. The DPE was much more
concerned about the practical operation of the aircraft rather than simple
radio nav skills.

In other words, studying a subject academically is much different than
actually participating in that subject physically and mentally.

Certainly you will agree that, all things being equal, it is good to
learn as much as one can on the ground before getting into the cockpit?
There is no substitute for manual practice, but manual practice is
going to happen anyway. *Why wait until getting into the cockpit
before learning things that can be learned on the ground?

And why do all these flight schols have simulators?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning.
* Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
and lab.

What about books?

I am reading FAA Handbook from front to back currently.

Any danger in doing that without an instructor present?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 16, 11:19*am, gatt wrote:
Clark wrote:
We had the same instructor and flew about the same number of hours
per week. My instructor mentioned that the other guy spent a long time
learning to look out the window rather than at the gauges.

He probably had trouble getting used to "feeling" slips, skids and
G-force difference as well. *Also the difference between control
movement and control pressure.

If this is the danger that pilots warn about, I know I will not have
it.

I have all the flight sim controls, including CH Pro peddals, yoke,
joysticks, separte headset, life-size render of guages, etc..

I do not delude myself into thinking that any of these things are a
substitute for a cockpit. I only use the simulator for "mens" part of
"mens et manus".

The payoff for him will come around during Instrument training, if he
chooses to do that. *I got a lot of mileage out of MSFS during my IFR
training, and still shoot approaches in it. *In fact, in this month's
AOPA Pilot magazine, Rod Machado mentions Flight Simulator as a tool to
stay proficient during extended periods away from the cockpit. *Of
course, that assumes the reader is already a pilot.

And let us not forget the "Learning to Fly With Rod Machado" that
comes with MSFS.

I think that if flight simulators were as dangerous as some pilots
claimed, someone so dedicated to teaching would have said so.

I think it comes down to the disposition and discipline of the
student. As long as s/he understands which part are safely
transferrable from the simulator (like understanding how VOR works),
then not much harm will be done.

In any case, I have already flown in real cockpit, and not at anytime
did I expect the aircraft to behave or feel like my living room sofa.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

He probably had trouble getting used to "feeling" slips, skids and
G-force difference as well. Also the difference between control
movement and control pressure.

If this is the danger that pilots warn about, I know I will not have
it.

I have all the flight sim controls, including CH Pro peddals, yoke,
joysticks, separte headset, life-size render of guages, etc..

They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.

The closest "simulator" to the real thing I've ever flown is a Frasca
Tru-Flight like this one: http://www.frasca.com/body/TruVision170.Lo.jpg

They usually cost about $100/hr to fly but if there's one in your area,
I highly recommend it. I do instrument approaches in one every few
months or so.

I think that if flight simulators were as dangerous as some pilots
claimed, someone so dedicated to teaching would have said so.

Many do.

As long as s/he understands which part are safely transferrable from the simulator (like understanding how VOR works),
then not much harm will be done.

That's exactly correct. It's the bad habits that one needs to be aware
of. (Simulators are forgiving and you don't have to worry about ADM,
communication, runway incursions or ground procedures.) I recently
installed the Wings of Power aircraft on my MSFS2004 and have been
having a blast with the heavy bombers, as well as a P-38.

-c

gatt writes:

They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.

Those sensations aren't necessarily imporant, unless one is flying by the seat
of one's pants, which probably isn't a good idea for most types of flight.

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

They won't slide you around in the seat during an uncoordinated turn or
lift you against the belt harness centripetal acceleration.

Those sensations aren't necessarily imporant, unless one is flying by the seat
of one's pants, which probably isn't a good idea for most types of flight.

Wrong.

If IFR an uncoordinated turn generally means either the instruments
have lunched or you've screwed up.

If VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window, not staring at
the instruments, so the sensation of an uncoordinated turn would
normally be the first indication it is happening.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.

Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

But you are learning, or not learning as is probably the case, out of
order. Sort of like learning Algebra before you know what 2 + 2 is.