GA Flight Simulators

[Doors to Automatic]

I would like to canvass some opinions on a project my firm is working on. We are a small low-cost manufacturer of flight simulators who have just received some equity funding to develop six high-quality Cessna 172 and PA28 fixed-base simulators including a surround visual system, working COM and NAV radios and fully functioning controls and sounds.

The visual model will be a high quality VFR scenery enabling accurate cross-country navigation.

Later we are planning to develop glass cockpit versions.

Our plan is to place at least four of these in flying schools for hire to students.

The important feature of this plan is that there will be no investment requirement (either up-front payment or lease agreement) on the part of the school and no contract to sign – in fact no obligation at all.

The club will be free to hire out time on the simulator as it sees fit and our firm will simply take a fixed fee per hour which will drop dramatically once a threshold is reached each quarter.

Our intention is that the simulator could be used when the weather or light prohibits real flying to practice various aspects of flying and/or to offer a lower cost alternative to actual flying.

Practice could include, cross-country nav trips, circuits, cross-wind techniques, engine-out landings, night and instrument flying and RT work.
We are also looking at getting CAA certification to allow up to 5 hours credit for the PPL and 25 hours for the IR.

My question is what do the instructors on the forum think to this plan – is it likely to be of interest to flying schools?

And are there any ideas or suggestions, things I haven’t mentioned that could add to the plan?

Thanks in advance for any contributions.

(Moderators: This is not intended to be an advert as I am not advertising our name or a product, just some market research so I hope my post won’t upset anyone. Our firm already legitimately advertises on Pprune.)

[pipertommy]

Would be good for IMC training, and keeping the skills to use the rating. I`ve done sometime in a PA34 sim (IR) found it to be a great help on learning procedures ect. Only thing was the likes of actual visual circuits( you would need a good all round view to set up) or stalling (didnt represent the real thing that well) were not much help.

Thinking back during my PPL training I would have jumped at the chance to carry out some revision in a Sim during bad weather, be it X-country or timed turns......

How much would it cost to install?

Good luck, sounds good at the right price

[Doors to Automatic]

Thanks for the response - to answer your question it wouldn't cost the club anything to install; we would take care of it all.

Also our sims would have a complete visual system to allow circuit practice and would accurately mimic stalling (part of the certification tests we are carrying out).

[18greens]

It will work if the instructors are paid flying rates for instructing in the simulator.

We had a sim that did nothing because the insrtuctors weren't paid to instruct on it. At other school they were mad busy on the sim because the were paid (and you can do it in the rain and its easier than walking out, checking out and no traffic delays.)

[FlyingOfficerKite]

In common with all simulators it would be good for so many aspects of flying training.

Just one point though - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try and make the it 'feel' like a real aeroplane.

So many simulators are so sensitive you spend more time trying to control the sim than you do learning the lesson.

Okay a commercial sim might be the ultimate, but there is no reason (that I can think of) why a sim for a light aircraft should not be programmed to react as the aircraft would be expected to.

Good luck with the venture.

FOK :)

[RSFTO]

On these terms you will have everybody asking for it. Simulator is the only key for good ifr training. You can have it approved also for 40 hours on the ifr course.

[Doors to Automatic]

Thanks for all the positive comments.

The idea is to make the sim hire as cheap as possible so the club can still pay the instructor and make a profit.

FLyingOfficerKite - we are going up in a real Cessna and PA28 to take actual flight model readings so we can make our simulators as realistic as possible from a flight model point of view with our own data pack.

[Jhieminga]

The school I work for has set up a Cessna simulator based on Microsoft and an add-on panel and controls, with three large TVs for the view. I've found that this allows some useful lessons even when the weather is below VFR minimums outside. General procedure training, decision making etcetera can all be practiced. The downside of this sim is that the handling is all wrong, way too sensitive and not representative of the real deal. If you can solve that then I'm all for it.:ok:

[Whopity]

An interesting idea but there are currently a number of players in the market. I would suggest that your market research is at the bottom end of the learning curve as the device you describe sounds more like a BITD than an FNPT or a Flight Simulator.

To be of any use it will need to be capable of being qualified as a FNPT in accordance with JAR-STD. The price of such a device is then likely to be well outside the range of a typical flying school conducting PPL training, so using it for 5 hours is rather academic. In any case which 5 hours of the syllabus would you use it for? There is only one instrument exercise on the course, instrument appreciation, which is better conducted with a real horizon; this leaves only radio nav to teach in the device. Remember its qualification will be for IFR not VFR instruction.

Since the introduction of JAR-FCL in 1999, the number of FNPTs has rapidly increased and now the market is saturated making it difficult to show a return on the investment. Whilst 40 hours credit for the IR is possible, it is too long in such a device as it leaves insufficient time in an aeroplane. You can't simulate met, ATC and the problems associated with them as well as getting slots etc.

With the existing STD providers support has been good in the early stages but rapidly drops off as the device ages; can a small company offer a better service at a competitive price?

[SNS3Guppy]

I can't speak to the terminology you use in the UK, but in the US there's a difference between a Flight Training Device, and a Simulator. The microsoft games and computer devices, even devices such as Frasca's and ATC instrument panels, are FTD's...flight training devices. Simulators...simulate. They simulate everything, and are realistic.

Realism is important. I say this because the original poster seems that the primary selling point of the concept is cost. Cost is important, don't get me wrong. However, other than the social aspects of hanging out at the local flying club, I imagine most would save themselves the trip and stay home to play on their own computers, if it's not a realistic endevor.

Realism has the same behavior of the airplane, including control feedback. Not just springs on a yoke that snap it back to center...like the ATC-810 or Frasca 142. It means a full cockpit you can sit in, identical to the airplane. In a real simulator, one can easily forget it's a sim...and that's when it becomes meaningful. Transfer of learning from a simulator to the airplane is positive, and easy, because it's seamless. Transfer from a computer game or flight training device is not, because the two aren't the same...device, and airplane.

Lack of motion is a big drawback in a sim. It's not a deal breaker (and I understand you want this to be low cost...which clearly means no motion), but motion is a big part of what makes a sim realistic. Far more so than scenery.

I have big doubts about a VFR simulator. Personally, I can't see much use for a simulator outside instrument training with respect to flight. One doesn't even need the sim for procedures...these can be taught in a "paper tiger" or cockpit mockup with the panels and controls depicted on paper charts...they're procedures, after all. I review my procedures at home on cockpit posters on my wall, with 3X5 cards blue-tacked to them showing each memory procedure...no need for a sim for that.

If one is going to fly instrument procedures, that's another matter. Instrument procedures, aside from the academic explaination of times and turns and reading a chart, require the instruments to move and the student to fulfill actions at the appropriate times, and the nuances of responding to needles, etc. But visually?

Where credit can be granted for the use of a simulator toward completing training requirements, the use of a VFR device really can't...and even at a low price isn't actually making a fiscal advance on completion of the pilot certificate or even the course of training. Doubtless it may see some use, but I don't think as much as one might expect.

Get it certified for use so that it's a legal trainer and make it capable of both IFR and VFR operations, give people a choice and boost the utility, and then you've got something. That's probably a much more expensive endevor than you intend...but do that and you'll have a product that will see a lot of use, and have a lot of utility to a flight school and to an instructor.

[Doors to Automatic]

My error - we do use the same terminology in the UK - what we will be building will be an FTD.

As I mentioned though we are focussing on making the flight model as close to the real thing as possible to allow for useful training.

I understand why the market might be weaker in the US - flying there is a lot cheaper and the weather generally better!

[SNS3Guppy]

I understand why the market might be weaker in the US - flying there is a lot cheaper and the weather generally better!


You'll notice I didn't really address the weather or the cost...for a reason. While the total cost may be less in the US and the exchange rate certainly favors coming over and exchanging the pound...when you consider the median income in the US and the money the average citizen has to start with...it's really not cheap. Nor is the issue the weather. It's strictly the utility.

I say that from my perspective as a potential user, and as an instructor.

If you can certify the FTD, and have it available for both IFR and VFR, then you'll have a good market.

[Doors to Automatic]

If you can certify the FTD, and have it available for both IFR and VFR, then you'll have a good market.

That's exactly what we are intending to do - almost from the word go :ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

In that case, you'll probably have a project that everyone can use, and use a lot. Good luck.

[Doors to Automatic]

Thank you :)

[FSJ]

Doors to Automatic check your PM.
Thanks,
FSJ