I work at a flight school which has recently taken delivery of an FNPT2. Unlike Send Clowns, I feel that it is wrong to advertise in postings on this forum so I will not mention the school’s name.
However, I would like to respond to the various posts on this subject.
We looked very carefully at the two options of a generic twin procedure trainer and a type specific one. We decided to select a type specific one. After all if you are going to spend 30 to 40 hours in the simulator and only 15 to 20 hours in the aircraft you need the simulator to replicate the aircraft as closely as possible. You actually need your hands and eyes to go to exactly the same places in the simulator as in the aircraft, otherwise you need
to relearn it all when you move into the aircraft.
We therefore had the simulator designed to look exactly like our aircraft. All the instruments, switches, trim controls, cowl flaps, carburettor heat controls etc are in the same position and all are the same as the ones in the aircraft. We actually took digital
photos of all of the instruments in our aircraft and sent them to the manufacturer.
In addition, the simulator flies like the aircraft. Our boss spent 5 days at the manufacturer’s premises carrying out factory acceptance procedures to ensure that it did.
But, to answer Mad Jock.
It CAN simulate real life. It depends upon how it was designed and how you operate it.
It allows for a wide variety of weather including different winds at different altitudes, plus turbulence, icing etc. In addition, you can change all of these halfway through a flight.
It allows you to record ATC messages, including other traffic, and play this back at appropriate intervals, e.g. the ‘lost‘ VFR pilot coming in just as you are trying to tell ATC that you are localiser established!
Our intention is to increase the workload throughout the simulator training phase so that by the time you are ready to fly the final aircraft phase, you are virtually ready for the CAA IR test.
Anyone with a well designed FNPT2 and some imagination and ingenuity should be able to do this.
www said ‘Not to mention that it is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount’.
This is true and it is our intention to make the simulator training as close to real life as possible.
He also mentions how much he learnt in a Frasca 142. The facilities in our FNPT2 are much greater than those in our Frasca 142. Think how much better prepared you can be for the test with these additional facilities.
If you are considering doing your IR on an FNPT2 ask some questions about its design and the way it is operated. Check that the above facilities are included. Don’t just assume that because it is an expensive good looking piece of kit the training will be good.
Finally, our simulator, which replicates both our twin-engined aircraft and our complex single, was given 40 hours credit by the CAA when they carried out their certification tests in the middle of April. We understand that we are the first school in the country to be given full certification on the initial CAA visit so they obviously thought it was good!