This should settle it!

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

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

"Oz Lander" wrote in message
...
http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

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


From the article-
"Fortunately for the good guys, FAR 61.65(e) limits the use of flight
simulators to 10 or 20 out of the required 40 hours required for the
instrument rating. This means that the instrument student must actually fly
a real airplane for a minimum of 20 to 30 hours in either simulated or
actual instrument conditions."

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?)

As a skydiver I recognize the benefits of using vertical wind tunnels to
"pretrain" first-jump students in stability and orientation. It's also
useful for working

out problems a student may have in mastering a stable freefall, but to get
your license you gotta do the actual jumps.

On Apr 15, 9:01 am, "Oz Lander" wrote:
http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

He also questions whether training for an Instrument license using
sims and view limiting devices is valid. FAA says yes.

Kev

Oz Lander writes:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

It's just another expression of opinion, exactly similar to what has been
given here.

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

muff528 writes:

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'm not. Much of instrument flight is watching instruments, following
procedures, and other activities that can be very accurately simulated. It's
the exact opposite of "seat of the pants" flying (which most simulators handle
poorly, unless they provide full motion).

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

I'm not. Much of instrument flight is watching instruments, following
procedures, and other activities that can be very accurately simulated. It's

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. Only when you fly a real airplane
on instruments can you fully learn to ignore the often contradicatory
sensory input from the movements of the airplane.

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.

Only when you fly a real airplane
on instruments can you fully learn to ignore the often contradicatory
sensory input from the movements of the airplane.

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.

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

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.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:01:45 +0000, Oz Lander wrote:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

Cite
"Hey . . . anybody can fly these airplanes," goes the hype!
/Cite

The author would have lamented the marketing for the early tricycle geared
aircraft from Cessna.

The idea behind simulations for education is one that's of interest to me.
Given a gross mistrust of schools (and prompted by an excellent if poorly
named book on teaching math to children:
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~kenschaft/Mathpower.html), I've been
introducing math to my 4 yo. Recent additions to his education have been
negative numbers and number lines.

But given those, I introduced a couple of days ago how the pairing of two
number lines can be used for addition and subtraction. It's a
"simulation" of the mental process (and also an introduction to mechanical
computing, which I view as having its own value).

Is this a Bad Thing? I'm teaching use of a tool very early. So I've some
doubts.

On the other hand, I've found a site with printable paper E6Bs. That's
one of my goals for the future pilot grin.

- Andrew

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

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

To expand a little on my earlier reply:

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.

Who is Bob Miller? Yet, he thinks he knows more than the FAA, more than
the Kings, more than Rod Machado, more than the AOPA, more than Bob
Gardner, and even more than me. Only two people seem to know anything
about flight instruction: Bob Miller and God, and God is sometimes
wrong but Miller never is. What, is this guy a retired surgeon or
something?

The US Air Force, which presumably knows something about flying,
successfully uses simulators and view limiting devices for instrument
training.

I strongly believe that the instrument student should get all the
simulator time he can (we are talking about real flight simulators, not
toys published by game companies). I do not think that simulator time
is enough, obviously. You have to fly in order to learn to fly, and
that includes instrument training. But flight simulators are invaluable
in getting your procedures down cold.

As for view limiting devices, I should point out that they have been
use since the very earliest days of instrument flying. We don't paint
the cockpit black like Jimmy Doolittle did, but we come close. I am
convinced that it is harder to fly an airplane with a view limiting
device than it is in actual instrument conditions.

As for the "weather adverse" (sic) flight instructor, perhaps Mr.
Miller has forgotten that most of the largest flight schools are
located in the desert? And for good reason -- the instructors are not
weather averse, as he claims, but you cannot learn to fly unless you
fly. Most places have too many days where the weather is below minimums
-- and surely Mr. Miller is not recommending that anyone fly in weather
like that.

Neither are "personal minimums" training to less than competency.
Aircraft vary widely in equipment, and their pilots in experience. I
have much higher personal minimums for a piston single equipped with
only one VOR and one radio than I do for a turbo-prop with a flight
director. It is not a matter of competence, it is a matter of allowing
a margine of error for equipment error or outright failure. You lose
that single VOR on the piston single in an approach to minimums and you
might as well get yourself measured for another, more permanent set of
wings.

This guy probably has a problem with the whole concept of dangerous
attitudes. If this is the way he really thinks, he is a statistic
already. He just doesn't know it yet.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor