Integrating FSX Into Real Flight Training: Good Idea?

[Procedures]

Hello Zondaracer, and thanks for the reply. Quickly:

You should add CFI, CFI-I and MEI right after step 1. Before you get close to a turbine, you probably will have to instruct for at least a couple hundred hours.

The VLJ will be my own. Therefore, I won't have the need for CFI/CFII ratings. However, I may seriously consider earning at least a CFI and taking on the challenge of instructing students for a brief period of time, as a way to enhance and solidify my own piloting skill, knowledge and awareness. There is an old saying that you really don't know a subject deeply unless you've taught it to someone else.

In the US, the majority of your flying will be in Class E airspace, and once you move up to turbines, a lot of the flying will be in class A airspace. Class B, C, and D are primarily used when you are getting in and out of airports, but when you are out in cruise and in practice areas, your flying will be in class E. Additionally, 60% ME turboprop time at that stage is quite optimistic in the US.

Even without a pilots license, I can already see that using FSX and PilotEdge (as just one example) reveals that the highest workloads occur during transitions into, through and out of class B/C/D airspace, while some of the easiest workloads seem to occur in all other airspace classifications. So, the highest procedural output requirements have always been in B/C/D for me on PilotEdge and FSX. PilotEdge replicates the Los Angeles ARTCC for Departure/Approach/Tower/Ground.

PilotEdge Live ATC

So, while most of the "actual" flying time will be spent outside the of upper limits of B/C/D is a true statement, the vast majority of procedural work seems to happen within those environments where the air traffic seems to be more dense.

This is the beauty (I hope) of using FSX in conjunction with PilotEdge. I'm already getting a better understanding of where some of the challenges will be in relation to procedural work and radio comms. I just need to know what I should be working on right now, before my actual training begins.

Typically not your PPL level aircraft.

Exactly, yes. That's actually part of the plan. They are slightly higher performing than the traditional Cessna 172, a bit less forgiving than the traditional 172 or 152, and they each have retractable landing gear with a constant speed propeller. The thinking here, was to gear-up for high-performance flying sooner rather than later, but not go so far over the top that learning in a civilian environment becomes too difficult and too distant. Those three (3) aircraft were selected very carefully based on their real world Flight Dynamics as initial trainers.

The other thing to remember here, is the ultimate goal will be operating a twin-engine VLJ single pilot, often times within the altitude range of RVSM, including a fair amount of transatlantic flights with a dry footprint and an equally fair amount of non-US airspace flights. So, I wanted to make sure that I was mentally prepared with enough "high-perf maturity" under my belt, such that I would not be fearful of the high-performance flight regimes in more capable aircraft. It was a mental/attitudinal thing for me.

If my target goal was an RV-10, then I could scale my training to match that performance requirement. But, I thought that single pilot in a VLJ over the Atlantic ocean might require a slightly different set of skills and experiences. I just want to be prepared to become the safest and the most competent pilot that I can be, personally. I feel that I have a personal responsibility to myself and others to do that.

Then you mention turbine time building. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure who is going to let you time build in a King Air unless you are really rich. Before you get near a King Air, the most logical step for most people in the US is to work as an instructor.

The MEL Turbo-Prop time building phases will be done with leased or owned C90B and B200 aircraft. I prefer the leasing option. Although, I have heard of pilots who start flying the King Air, believing that they will move on to something else and then falling madly in love with the aircraft.

I have no idea how I am going to "feel" about the King Air, or whether or not I'll develop a love affair with the airframe and its performance. But, I do know that it is a good platform for preparing myself for the eventual VLJ.

Both the CJI and CJII are Single Pilot Certified airframes. If I could get the same amount of lease time with either aircraft, I would replace the C90B and B200 with either one. That would then make the transition to the purchased VLJ far more horizontal and a lot less vertical. But, I believe I would have to spend more time at the MEL normally aspirated phase before I had the hours necessary for someone to lease the CJ1/CJII to me (I'll have to look into that question). But, certainly without question, the CJI/CJII route would be better than the C90B/B200 route for "turbine" time development, no doubt.

I personally have been playing flight simulator since I was 10, so I understand how you feel, but now that I am an instructor, one thing I can tell you is that it is really easy to tell when a student plays flight simulator... the reason being that we have to make them unlearn a lot of habits before they learn the correct way.

That's why I'm here!

The point is to not learn bad habits and only focus on those mental routines that allow for the development of good procedural practices in the cockpit. That last thing I want to challenge myself with is having to unlearn bad habits while at the very same time trying to develop good replacement habits. This is why I have a boat load of questions about what I can start working on using FSX and PilotEdge, from those who are actually CFI/CFII.

Flight simulator is a good tool to use once you are well into your training, especially at the instrument rating phase, but I would recommend that you spend more of your free time reading your books cover to cover before you start playing flight simulator.

I heard once before that FSX might be a good tool to use after one has a pilots license. I'm making a distinction between the Kinesthetic and the Procedural/Mental parts of flying and learning to fly. One of the greatest examples that I can give is my experience with Radio Comms. and ATC.

For the new student pilot, it is difficult to figure how radios comms. should work, when you are still trying to fully understand the pitch, power and trim settings for the aircraft you fly, what all the instruments mean and why they are important to any phase of flight, how to operate the radios, transponder, VOR, ADF and the basic HSI, all while attempting to unconsciously hold altitude, hold heading, or worse, hold and maintain a specific rate of descent at a specific airspeed. Geepers! All that gets dumped into the lap of the student, almost right off the bat and the vast majority of it is procedures related.

I'm not trying to cut corners. In the U.S. it still takes 40 hours total before one can legally be licensed as a private pilot. The national average is still upwards of 60 hours total. What I'm trying to do is make room inside my brain during training for the real cognitive work that every pilot has to do, especially when transitioning through dense/thick/heavy controlled airspace on departure and arrival in a so-called complex aircraft.

If I'm still stuck on trying to figure out what ATC just blurted at me on the Radio, and I'm seeing my airspeed drop-off as my altitude increases and my heading changes from where I should be, and I forgot the last four words that ATC shot my way- then what does my brain spend the most time trying to catch up on. They say the Number #1 Rule is to "First Fly The Airplane." Ok, but now I feel extra stupid because not only am I extra late on the reply to ATC, but I forgot their instructions.

So, now, I've got the airplane under the control but I'm wearing a propeller hat in the corner of the room, because I have to call ATC back and ask them to "Say Again," all because my brain was preoccupied with basic procedures that I could have already worked out on the ground in a simulator that offers high enough fidelity to reproduce such environments. LOL, and this was on a clear, sunny, sky blue day - supposed it was MVFR. The brain is now completely unfocused because there is no real understanding of where the procedures fit into the overall equation and my learning curve is now flattened by at least X%.

I'm trying to figure out some basic/fundamental things that I can work on that will help to free up some brain cycles during real flight training. I don't want to be swamped with learning procedural stuff that does not have to be initially learned in the cockpit and stuff that can easily be moved into the Review column once the real flight training begins - as opposed to having exposed to me for the very first time. That's the type of stuff I want to nail to the wall right now.

Let me give you a little example of what I'm talking about:

Yesterday, I took stock C-172N from CYJQ in Canada on a northwesterly heading using a cloud set from Orbx/FTX that would give me IMC conditions throughout the flight, just to see how I would handle it. I had no idea where I was going or what my destination airport would be - I just wanted to experience trying to figure out how to navigate without visual reference. Visibility was down to under 1.5 miles the entire time and I was constantly in and out of the clouds at all altitudes, while climbing up to 10,100ft.

I basically tried to remain on the runway heading until reaching cruising altitude and that's when I realized how difficult doing just that would be. Having a stiff X-wind from the West, there were also some pretty big up/down drafts as well. The VSI kept plunging 500fpm and the airspeed was all over the place as the little C-172N "that could" began to feel really small inside a somewhat hostile environment. It was at this point that I remember an old training flight I had in a C-172 many years ago, during stiff X-winds coming through the opening at the Golden Gate Bridge on day. The aircraft was being tossed around exactly like I remember it. I also remembered that making huge control inputs as corrections during thee turbulent times, was futile from the real aircraft. So, I stopped making huge control corrections and that's when my simulated C-172 started climbing better and maintaining heading significantly better. Lesson #1 Re-Learned.

I had no idea how to use the VOR. I turned to a Southern heading and just flew at 10,100ft while figuring out how to maintain heading and altitude under those turbulent conditions without the benefit of a horizon. I was in the clouds, mostly blind, precious few looks at the ground below and now on a Southern heading. That's when I decided to call ATC and ask for directions to an airport.

I noticed that Boeing Field came up on the ATC info screen in FSX. I tuned to Boeing Field ATIS and made some notes. The aircraft kept drifting off course, so I constantly had to make subtle adjustments to keep the heading and altitude stable - it was really hard work just keeping the aircraft flying a prescribed heading at a prescribed altitude in those conditions. ATC indicated that Boeing was at my 9 O'clock - so I initiated a level turn to a heading 90-degrees left, still unable to see the ground or the horizon. Of course, I had already trimmed out for cruise, and set both cruise power and cruise mixture, so the engine was being managed the best I knew how.

All of sudden I see mountain peaks to my right about 10 miles. Now, I'm thinking to myself: Gee, this was dumb. Now, I'm going to slam into mountains that I cannot see. What a lesson that will be. After asking for directions to the airport, ATC indicates that the airport was something like 19 miles from my position. (thank goodness for ATC!)

I increased the mixture full rich, pulled the power to 1900rpm and set the pitch to capture 500ft/min on the VSI and then trimmed the elevator to hold that attitude. It was tough. The winds were bouncing the aircraft all over the place, but the 500ft/min pretty much held and the airspeed remained fairly stable. I had no idea whether or not that was the correct Pitch/Power setting for this aircraft coming from 10,100ft to a target 31 miles away. I asked ATC again for direction and they told me that the airport was at my 12O'clock, but I could not see it, of course.

Eventually, around 4,500ft most of the thick cloud layer broke and I could see just across the southern end of Puget Sound. Still unable to see the airport, I asked ATC for directions a couple more times and they kept coming back with the airport at my 12 O'Clock, each time with a shorter distance between the airport and my aircraft's position. So, I knew I was at least heading in the right direction. As the clouds cleared out below me, I saw the airport light signal used that as my target without being able to fully make out the runway.

I then set a rate of descent that put the intermittent light beam from the airport in the same spot on my windshield and that gave me a consistent 100mph airspeed (again, not knowing whether or not this airspeed was correct for this aircraft). ATC then cleared me for straight in to runway 13, but I looked at my altitude and did not feel comfortable that I could make 13 straight in, feeling that I would be too high for the approach. So, I asked for a runway change to 31R. ATC cleared me to a right hand base to 31R. This gave me more time to get down and shed altitude.

I got to about 1,200ft just abeam the end of runway 13, and decided to throw out 10-dgrees of flaps at about 90kts which was 3kts over Vfe, but the winds were strong and caused the airspeed indicator to fluctuate within a 10kt range and I needed to get down to 750ft pattern altitude not knowing if that was the correct TPA, but recalling that number from a flight training day some 20 years ago.

The aircraft finally settled down and I was able to stabilize it at roughly 700ft and 90kts. Because of the winds, I wanted to carry a little extra airspeed into my base leg turn which I eventually made off an extended downwind. I dropped 10 more degrees of flaps on base, but needed to bump-up the throttle slightly to hold the airspeed.

Turing to an extended final, I dropped the last 10-degrees of flaps and pushed the nose over in an attempt to hold about 85kts. Coming over the threshold, there was a strong gust pushing the aircraft to the left, so I applied right rudder and slightly dipped the right wing to re-intercept the center-line - this seemed to work. Over the numbers I cut the power to just above idle and began looking up at the end of the runway as Gregory M. Penglis, in his book "The Complete Guide to Flight Instruction," instructs that on landing, the end of the runway should come into alignment with site-picture and a fixed point on the windshield, causing a natural flare to take place routinely. He was right - it worked. The right mains touched first followed by the left and then the nose.

It was fairly obvious to me that I had no idea whatsoever, what I was doing, but it was hugely informative and instructional about the things that I need to learn and the procedures that I need to nail down to make such flights far more common an whole lot less stressful.

This is what I mean about using a simulator. Not as a Game, but as a Tool for learning about what not to do, and about which procedures, actions, decisions and thoughts are necessary for safely operating the aircraft being modeled.

1) Not knowing how to use the VOR made this a lot more difficult than it had to be.

2) Not knowing the pitch and power settings for the aircraft made controlling it more difficult than it had to be.

3) Not knowing what ATC communication would come next down the pipe-line created more stress for having to solve more problems related to getting set-up for the right runway.

4) Not knowing how to flight plan around Mountains in IMC conditions almost bought me a first class ticket to a serious CFIT situation (definitely not good).

Ok, so it was just a sim. But, did my brain know the difference, or did it book the experience as something to draw upon later?

That's the real question here - can I use this stuff to build real recall capability inside my own brain, sufficient to help me with improving the learning curve during the actual flight training phases. I don't consider this a game - I think it really all depends on how you approach it.

Some books I would definitely read are:

Thank you. I already have each book on your list in my library. I just need to get through them all. Stick and Rudder was the first book on aviation I bought many years ago. I believe the book knowledge is great and absolutely necessary. But, how much more effective can my learning be, if I married the book knowledge with some practical procedural experience with a flight sim environment like FSX and PilotEdge and what areas do I start working on right now?

I have eight months before my flight training begins. I want to preempt some of the learning curve and boost memory recall before the real things starts with good habits, not bad ones. Any good idea for helping me do that is a good idea.

Thanks!