IR Training Software

[Dragonlight]

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to ask what is the IR computer training software of choice these days. I've done a bit of searching and seem to get mixed reviews of the various software. I'm running a Macbook Pro so something compatible is the obvious choice, I just wondered if there was a current "industry standard".

I'm currently doing the ATPL(A) theory, but want to get ahead of the game in my spare time.

[Darth_Bovine]

Hi Dragonlight,

People rave about RANT. I've only used it briefly, but I believe it's the only affordable sim to simulate ADF dip (a characteristic of the ADF causing the needle to "dip" when turning towards the beacon, for example).

I mainly used MS Flight Sim X at home. I found the handling aspect rubbish, but you can stick the autopilot on and then place yourself in "random" positions around an NDB hold and then figure out the best way to enter and subsequently remain in the hold. You can pick it up (a new copy) for less than £20 these days. Defo worth it IMHO. I'm not sure if you can get one that is compatible with Mac.

Good luck!

[mad_jock]

Its called Rant XL by oddsoft.

Almost all the simulator proffessional stuff is windows. Rant you can run it under an emulator on a Mac and it seems to work fine.

Oddsoft Ltd (http://www.oddsoft.co.uk/)

And look under news for a mac statment.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

I myself think that a normal simulator for PC may help you in the instrumental stage of your training. As somebody pointed out default aircraft suck when it comes down to handling, so try to get every kind of addon made by Carenado, that's the only thing I can tell you.

How many schools do actually use Microsoft Flight Simulator/Prepar3d or X-Plane for training purposes? I've already come across some.

[AMS]

For your IR course.

It is either RANT (excellent) or Luiz Monteiro.

MS FlightSim - did not help and you will waste time tbh.

With RANT and Luiz Monteiro software you will understand the raw data and get your head around the basics without faffing around trying to fly the aircraft.

My experience was that once you have nailed the concepts and know what the needles are doing and what they tell you. You will have additional capacity to then concentrate and build on handling and fitting in all the procedures etc....

Using RANT and practising will in turn save additional IR hours and loads of cash......

Best of Luck

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

Just out of curiosity, what is the price of RANT for an indivual student?

[mad_jock]

80-90 quid I think.

[Darth_Bovine]

I agree with AMS that Rant is probably the preferred option, but at £80-90 quid....

I have to disagree with AMS about MS FSX. It is not a toy if used correctly with an understanding of its limitations. I found it very useful (during my IR) to plan before a training flight and to debrief what went well or not so well after a flight. From my point of view it helped my situational awareness. You can go through a flight and carry out checks and briefs as you would during the real ME/IR flight.

Get the flows right on the ground. Be self critical and keep practising until smooth. Especially if you get an add-on for the plane you will be flying. You could even spend a bit of time getting the panel to look exactly like your training aircraft (I didn't get too far with that though).

Now that MS FSX is at 20 quid I think it's a bargain!

[mad_jock]

How many minutes is 80 quid now in a twin?

Or for that matter in a FNPT II with an instructor.

[Darth_Bovine]

How many minutes is £20!? :ok:

I see your point but for the cost of a few pints FSX is a good tool. Most schools have Rant installed somewhere so you can use away at that. I just used FSX and it worked out for me. YMMV.

[constanceheading]

I used MS Flight Sim. It was an excellent tool for getting to grips with most areas. I never really got he hang of RANT!

[mad_jock]

Ones a pro bit of training software as you say used by most IR training schools the RAF etc.

And the other one is a mass market game with a dodgy flight simulation engine.

One is designed to lead you through instrument flying in a logical manner to build situational awarness with realistic instrument responses and lesson plans

And the other one lets you loose with no plan and allows you to develope bad habits.

One costs 80 quid.

The other one costs 20 quid which for flight training is proberly more than its worth. Added in the hardware required to get it to function in any sort of meaning full way. So Joystick needs to be added to the cost. And actually the older 32 bit versions are better for instrument training if you can get them to work on your operating system. You should be able to get that for a fiver which is realistically is its worth.

In the grand scope of keeping costs down RANT will save you far in excess of its cost so is good economics.

MSFX for a quick wazz round a procedure once you know what you are doing before you do it for the first time it is good enough. Actually learning about instrument flying it is useless and developes bad habits.

[Darth_Bovine]

MSFX for a quick wazz round a procedure once you know what you are doing before you do it for the first time it is good enough. Actually learning about instrument flying it is useless and developes bad habits.

You will only develop bad habits if you let it. Fly it like you should be flying it. Get taught it first by an instructor then work through it in your spare time for free.

As for hardware: you can fly it with a mouse and autopilot - it is not about the flying dynamics but more about the procedures and situational awareness. Like I said: I found it useful for IR training for what it was. Take what you learn in the FNPT2 or real a/c and practise in MSFS. Rant does not allow you to practice the full procedures and checks with a realistic control panel which you can customise to look exactly like your training a/c (although it's been a while since I used Rant). Each software has pros and cons but to dismiss FSX as a mass market game sounds like you have not used it for IFR training while appreciating its limitations. That's fine - you can pick the SW to help your training as you see fit. As can I.

I'm not saying don't use Rant. Use all the tools you have to keep practised.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of of FSX.

(PS: I've not used 'X-Plane' but I suspect it would be equally as useful - or not from Mad Jock's point of view - as MS FSX)

[mad_jock]

Mate I am a 5000 hour plus line training Captain and also 1000 hour Instructor at PPL level. The flight simulation engine is a pile of rubbish.

Maybe I have a little more exposure to instrument flying (3000 hours manual flying in a old heap of a TP) and teaching than you have hence I think RANT is pretty good and worth 80 quid and MSFX a pile of poo for most instruction outside having a wazz around to get the flow of a procedure with radio setting nav aids and stepdowns, turns and speed reductions. But if the basic skills arn't there to begin with or they are just maturing it can do more harm than good.

And I get enough flying daily so as such I don't have a copy of either. Skyrim gets a good hammering though.

RANT is not a simulator it is a radio navigation tutor. It is a stuctured course to understand the instruments, the information they are giving you and how to interprete it.

I'm currently doing the ATPL(A) theory, but want to get ahead of the game in my spare time.

As this is what the OP wants. Rant fits the bill exactly. MSFX would just be a game with potential to give issues when real instrument training starts.

If during the proper instrument training they think that MSFX may be of help they can spend a fiver and crack on and use it in a strutured manner.

But the FO's I line train usually start off with that theory but quite quickly stop using it because it just ain't an aircraft doing 210knts with ATC blaring in your ear and some moaning line training Captain in the LHS seat telling you to keep the speed up. Usually because you have a heavy up your arse and ATC will blow a fuse if you come back to 140knts at 12 miles or 160 knts on the downwind.

So may be thats the reason why we will have to agree to disagree well until you get a load of teaching hours and operation hours under your belt then you might agree with me.

[Darth_Bovine]

I never said Rant wasn't any good (in my OP I actually recommended it 1st). I was disagreeing with your total dismissal of FSX. I wouldn't use it for any more than it is. But IMHO I found it useful during the IR. And again from my original post I said the flight engine was rubbish so I'm not arguing over that (although you keep mentioning it).

For the OP I'll concede that Rant may be better as he hasn't started the flying part yet (but that's what I said in my original reply). In fact he might be safer just concentrating on the books at his stage...

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you about who has more hours or the bigger wang/watch/car. I'll tell you for free that you have more hours and experience in flying than me for sure. But we all start from somewhere. There's always a bigger fish.

[mad_jock]

In my experence MSFX is a game and mostly a complete pile of poo for training.

I am sure you have a bigger watch as I have a 90 quid eco drive zulu hand plain one, and I don't own a car. As its -30 outside where I am now the toddger competion will have to wait even if I have my M&S long pants on.

[Darth_Bovine]

Well, we agree on watches at least and at the end of the day that's all that really matters, eh?:)

[Dragonlight]

Thanks everyone for the insights, I think I'll plump for Rant for the time being.

Cheers again.
DL.

[maxed-out]

Dragonlight,

Some time ago I saw an add about ifr training software online, written by the same chaps who sell the interview stuff. If I'm allowed to mention it it's cockpitweb. If the mods don't want it mentioned they can delete at will.

Never tried the software as I used Rant a lot for my IR. But i have been looking for something to "fly" IFR as well (other than MSFS)and reading the website it looks like a simple joystick will suffice as the program auto trims the aircraft for you so you can concentrate on flying, timing,tracking etc. Also comes with a structured syllabus with lessons and an ifr book. Don't know if the authors are UK pilots or not.

Good luck and enjoy the course.

[mad_jock]

Oh I can recommend M&S long pants when it gets cold and your flying. So if your doing your IR in some auld heap of a dutchess in the middle of winter I would recommend them along with a pair of thinsulate gortex magnum boots.

[BillieBob]

I'm with mad_jock on this one. The choice is between a piece of dedicated software, written by a CAA flight examiner with more degrees than most of us have A-levels, specifically designed to train people to pass the IR skill test, and a computer game. Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good computer game but, when all's said and done, it's just a game.

There will be those that sing the praises of MSFS as a training tool but they will tend to be those who are trying to justify their own decisions and not those who have been IR instructors, TREs or Line Captains.

[Darth_Bovine]

My final note on this:

Personally I don't have to "justify [my] own decisions" by recommending it. I passed 1st time. It worked for me. Your mileage may vary....

I recommended it coz it's cheap and freely available and most people probably already have it installed. I used it as a tool. It almost smacks of snobbery when people say you have to use the "right aviation software" and "it's only £80". Well, do we not pay enough in this industry already?

[mad_jock]

Well from an Instructors point of view we have seen to many times issues come up due to MSFS use.

We have also seen students have to pay alot of money to rectify issues caused by using Simulation in a none controlled self taught manner.

Some times the issues are masked by sheer natural ability and only come to light when the work load gets increased to single engine NDB apparoach level. Sometimes it only comes to light during type rating or line training. Unfortunately its not impossible to fail a type rating. I know 3 personally that have done so. 2 at the sim stage and one doing the base check after 2 additional hours doing circuits he was a first time pass as well at IR. He was apprently fine doing apparoaches at 80 knots cruising at 130knts. 170knts clean circuit speed reducing to 120knots with 10 times the amount of power that he had had previously and he couldn't manage it.

Its really not a snobbish recomendation to be extremely careful with your exposure using it. Its just we have all had not one but many students which we have had to battle to break out of MSFS induced habits. Its always easier to teach someone as a clean sheet than have to clean that sheet or correct that sheet before imprinting the training thats required.

In reality the SPA/MEP/IR is a high work load test of potential. It allows you to then go forward and learn. A fresh out of school IR is a danger to themselves which only experence can then sort out.

Even at my level (whch isn't high to be honest) I am very consious of my experence limits. A multi crew icing approved turbo prop with a 201 hour FO in the RHS fresh out of type rating no problem whazzing around europe. Put me in a MEP single crew these days (and to be honest it was the same when I had just passed the IR and never changed) and I would be a fish out of water. Yes I would know what I was doing round the procedures these days but all the additional PIC skills required to fly that aircraft safely wouldn't be third sense.


The only reason why myself and Billiebob are saying be very careful is purely due to what we have seen pilots go through. You will find that instructors that used it personally themselves during training quite quickly change thier opinion once they are in the RHS teaching.

The most common lesson I give in line training these days is effects of controls and straight and level. And getting the pilot to let the machine do the flying and not to annoy it and take it out the groove. Unless the sim has a trimming feature which needs constant analog adjustment with changes in speed its pretty much useless for training.

[mad_jock]

On a slightly different note pete

Check your plans for the renewals they have played with the system and you might find that you MEP falls off in the 5 years and they will make you do the rating again.

[mad_jock]

I would check about that as I said things ahve changed and the old rules don't apply.

[mad_jock]

You need to go and read CAP 804

That looks like the rules for JAR on that page.

We have now entered the age of EASA since Sept.

I have a sneaky feeling that if your up to the 5 year point already you in for a bit of hurt.

There are some understanding CFI's down in the Private flying forum running ATO's if it looks like your going to get fleeced by the commercial schools.

And I wouldn't bother with FCL they arn't answering emails and will just refer you to CAP 804 on the phone. They are rammed with license issuing from the EASA changes.

[mad_jock]

Sounds like you have the right attitude for it all.

I have to do the full course again now apparently on the MEP according to some schools.

Unlike you though I fly a twin engined turboprop as a day job.

Them condition levers and cowl flaps must be harder than I remember.

[mad_jock]

ADN is not my base but I grew up there, but I think I know the lady your on about.